Ancient Israel, before the New Testament Church of God began, was
called the "church in the wilderness"(Acts 7:38). It was
organized from the TOP down. There was God, then Moses, under
Moses there were Elders, captains over thousands, and hundreds
and so on down the pyramid of the chain of authority. Israel's
church - state government - was THEOCRATICAL, from God down to a
specific human leader who had total authority and leadership over
every other person in the nation. Was Israel's type of government
to be carried over into the Church of the New Covenant? If so
then we should be able to find ample evidence to support this
teaching from the writings of the New Testament. Let us humbly
search to find the truth of the matter.
by
Keith Hunt
Using a "Harmony of the Gospels" book, we find that the
first recorded person we would classify as one of Jesus'
disciples was Andrew, who spent part of a day with Him (John
1:35-40). Andrew soon introduced Simon his brother to Jesus. When
Jesus saw Simon He instantly diagnosed his basic personality and
said: "So you are Simon the son of John. You shall be called
cephas(which means 'stone')." Harmony of the Gospels by Ralph
Heim.
Now did Jesus by giving Simon a new name establish him as
HEAD apostle? The next day Jesus found Philip and he brought
Nathaniel to Jesus. Again Christ discerned the character of
Nathaniel, "Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile"
(v.47).
Because you were the first to be called as one of Jesus'
disciples, or given another name, or have Christ state your
personality in a miraculous way - does that mean you are head
disciple?
If so, Andrew could claim it as first named or recorded
disciple in the ministry of Jesus. Peter could claim it as being
given a new name. Philip could possibly claim such an office as
he was the first recorded person that Jesus said the words
"follow me" to.The truth is, in none of these passages did Jesus
name anyone as HEAD disciple.
Actually the official calling of Peter and Andrew was some
time later, see a "Harmony of the Gospels" book. And James and
John were also called at the same time. If you study the Harmony
of the Gospels you will see that between these two incidents
in John chapter one and Luke chapter five (also recorded in
Matthew 4 and Mark 1) Jesus had disciples already following Him.
Jesus chose 12 to be His close inner circle (Mark 3:13-19).
In the list of these twelve as given by Mark and Luke, Simon
Peter is put first. Now does this automatically of itself prove
that Peter was the CHIEF apostle? Let's not assume anything but
prove all things from God's own word.
WHO WAS THE CHIEF APOSTLE?
For three and one half years Jesus was in close fellowship
with His chosen twelve disciples. He knew their strengths,
weaknesses, and their personalities. He had ample time to
determine WHO if anyone should be head apostle, who should be
second in command, who third, and so on down the line.
We have recorded for us in the four Gospels three separate
incidents where Jesus could have made it very plain to them who
He had chosen to be chief among them and head of all the
ministers in the Church, the one with final authority and the
power of veto.
The first incident is found in Mark 9:33-35 (the same
account is also given in Mat.18 and Luke 9) where we read: "And
they came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house He asked
them, ' What were you discussing on the way?' but they were
silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who
was the GREATEST. And He sat down and called the twelve."
Here was Jesus' golden opportunity to tell them the
governmental structure He wanted among themselves, here was His
chance to declare to them, the one, two, three, in the authority
line. But what DID He say? "And He said to them, if anyone would
be first(desired to be, wanted to be) HE MUST BE LAST OF ALL AND
SERVANT OF ALL" (RSV, emphasis mine).
Jesus did not even hint that there was to be a pyramid type
of Church structure. He told them that if anyone in their own
mind desired such a position as being "top dog" that person had
better put himself last and be servant to all the others.
To be the greatest in God's sight is to be humble and put
such a desire of exaltation out of your mind and go about
serving!
Months went by and the disciples, or at least two of them,
forgot what Jesus had taught them. It is human nature to think
that in a group of twelve surely someone must be the greatest,
and maybe that someone is ME!
On a certain day James and John came to Jesus and asked Him
if THEY could be the ones to sit on His right and left hand in
the Kingdom. Jesus said only the Father had the authority to
decide who would be given those positions, it was not for Him or
for them to decide (Mark 10:35-40).
The account in Mark continues to say: "And when the ten
heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John, and Jesus
called them to Him and said to them, 'You know that those who are
supposed to rule over the Gentiles LORD it over them, and their
great men exercise authority over them. BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO
AMONG YOU."
They were not to exercise rulership over each other, they
were not to be like the governments of this world, having a
system of dictatorial pyramid authority. Continuing:
"But whoever would be great among you must be your SERVANT, and
whoever would be first among you must be SLAVE of all" (verses
43-44).
How this incident must have come to the apostle Peter's mind
when he exhorted the elders: "Likewise you younger(in age and/or
length of service) submit(honor, respect, look to with
appreciation) unto the elder(in age and/or ones who have served
longer in the ministry). Yes, ALL of you be SUBJECT one to
another and be clothed with HUMILITY. For God resists the
PROUD(the self-important ones, those who would rule over others
and put themselves in some great office of authority) and gives
grace to the HUMBLE" (1 Peter 5:5, emphasis and amplified
myself).
What words from a mighty man of God. Mighty in the way the
Lord used him. Think about Acts chapter two, then chapter 10, and
15. Think about the great miracles Peter did even to the point
that when his shadow passed over people they were healed!
Peter was a pillar in the Jerusalem Church of God (Gal.2). Yet he
also made his errors and went away from the path of truth at
times, so that the relative new comer to the apostle function,
the apostle Paul had to correct and rebuke him openly (Gal.2).
But he took it as a true child of God, he did not allow his pride
to get in the way, or allow his "ego" to be hurt and a root of
bitterness to spring up. He was exercised to bring forth the
fruits of righteousness from all the corrections he received from
the Lord. And so could pen those great words above. Peter was a
humble man, he was willing to be subject "one to another."
Oh, how all the ministers of the Church of God need to
exhibit the character of Peter in this matter. I have personally
seen the exact opposite manifested many times by some who call
themselves the ministers of God. I wonder how many times the Lord
has seen this wrong attitude practiced down through the
centuries?
Even after these two separate incidents, there still arose a
third time when: "A dispute also arose among them, which of them
would be regarded as the greatest" (Luke 22:24, RSV).
Jesus again told them they were not to be like the
governments of this world. He gave them HIS EXAMPLE! Be a
servant, do not have the "I'm the greatest" attitude.
He did specifically promise those twelve(Matthias replacing
Judas, Acts 2) a throne each - ruling one tribe of Israel in the
Kingdom(Mat.19:28). But He never said any of those thrones would
be above the others. Just as He never said any one of them would
be above the rest in authority in this physical life within the
function of the Church.
What Jesus taught them over and over again was to have love
and service among themselves. What He inspired Peter to tell all
Elders was that they should be humble and be willing to be
subject to each other.
DID JESUS MAKE PETER HEAD OF THE CHURCH?
Some teach that Christ made Peter chief apostle over the New
Testament (NT) Church. Others teach that the true Church today is
headed by ONE man!
Those who teach this idea often give Matthew 16:18-19 as
proof to the supremacy of one authoritarian man as head of the
Church. The Roman Catholic church claim the Pope is the direct
descendant of Peter who they say was made chief apostle by
Christ. But what is the real truth? Let's examine these verses in
Matthew very carefully.
Jesus said: "And I say unto you, that you are Peter (Greek is
Petros - meaning a 'stone') and upon this rock (Greek is Petra -
meaning a 'ledge' or 'shelf of rock' or 'crag of rock') I will
build my church" (Mat.16:18).
Notice the true meaning as originally written in the Greek
language. The English word "stone" is translated from the Greek
word "Petros" meaning a single stone or loose stone. The Greek
word "Kephas" means such a stone. But when Jesus said, "upon this
rock I will build my church" the Greek word used was not Kephas
or Petros but PETRA, a large massive rock.
Certainly Peter was used as the main up-front leader in the Church on and after the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2 and after, and it was to him that God revealed that the Gentiles were to come into the New Testament church of God. Yes Peter that the dominant Apostle at first until Paul was called into the apostleship. Speaking of the Israelites under Moses in the wilderness,
Paul wrote: "For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed
them; and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST"(1 Cor.10:4).
The CHURCH is described in Ephesians 2:20 as, " being built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST
Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE."
Here Christ is said to be the HEAD or chief, the final
authority of the Church of God, not some individual mortal man!
The real foundation of the Church is Jesus. "For other
foundations can no man lay than that is laid, which IS Jesus
Christ" (1 Cor.3:11).
He is shown in Revelation 1:13-18 to be the living head, in
the midst of the Church. Read also these passages - Ephesians
5:23; 4:15; 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18,19; 2:19.
THE DISCIPLES GO FORTH
Mark tells us that Jesus chose 12 special disciples (chapter
3:13,14). Luke says He called them apostles(chapter 6:13). It is
written He sent them "out to preach and have authority to cast
out demons" (Mark 3:14,15).
Notice it! They were sent out to do WHAT? Have dictatorial
power and authority over the members of the Church? Have
authority of each other, over other ministers of Christ? NO! They
were given authority over DEMONS not other ministers. Jesus never
said they were to rule God's children with an iron hand, lording
it over them, acting like some little Hitler cracking the whip.
Later again Christ sent out the twelve. He gave them POWER
and AUTHORITY yes, but over what? Not over each other - no! He
gave them authority over demons and power to heal every disease
and infirmity (see Mat.10:1-4; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:2).
He sent them out TO PREACH! Preach what? Personal authority
over one another, a pecking order of Church organization? God's
word says, "......to PREACH the KINGDOM OF GOD."
Jesus later appointed 70 others. He sent them out "two by
two" to do His work. He did not say that one of the two was chief
of the other. They were obviously a TEAM - two by two - two
standing alongside each other, neither having binding authority
over the other, but both being subject to each other and the
younger respecting the older as we have seen in 1 Peter 5.
Please read carefully this account as given in Luke 10. The
only authority they had was to heal, cast out demons, and preach
the good news of the Kingdom.
Jesus had ample time and opportunities to explain in some
detail to His first disciples how the Church should be structured
along a pyramid authority line if that was what He wanted it to
be like. But we find no such teaching from the lips of Christ in
the gospels. On the contrary, we find the exact opposite
teaching.
His people and ministers were to be organized on two basic
pillars - LOVE to each other and a SERVING SERVANT attitude. Only
those who have some personal gain to follow for the wrong reasons
can fail to see these two pillars taught over and over again in
the four Gospels.
The rest of the NT shows this does not mean ministers and
members are to be "door mats" to each other. Everyone walking
over each other, ignoring one another. It does not mean there is
to be no "correction" within the Church. It does not mean there
is to be no logical organization, for Paul was inspired to say
that things should be done "decently and in order" and that God
was "not the author of confusion" (1 Cor.14).
What it simply means is that everything the Church does, its
ministers (elders/overseers) and members, is to be done with
respect of each other, humility and submissiveness to each other,
and with love and service for one another in all things.
Some of the last words Christ said to His disciples was not
that they should try to dominate and establish authority over
each other in a hierarchy Church structure, but that collectively
they should with team work effort, "Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them.. ....teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you...." (Mat.28: 19-20).
Here Jesus gives a THREE PART commission to His ministers
and followers: 1) make disciples 2) baptize 3) teach what Jesus
commanded.
This is NEW Testament instruction for the NEW Covenant
Church of God and there is not one word here or anywhere from the
lips of Christ about establishing a "pecking orde" of authority
for His ministers and members of His spiritual body.
Take a good look at Jesus' words found in Mark 16:15-18.
Again we have instruction to go and teach and baptize. The sheep
of the fold are to be fed and taught. Disciples are to be made
from all nations - preaching of the gospel. The Bride is to be
prepared for the Bridegroom.
Certain signs (as the Lord gives and directs, see 1 Cor.12)
would follow within the Church. These signs were very evident in
the apostolic Church of the first century. In somewhat of a
lesser degree they are evident today among God's people, but will
be more powerful and more abundant near the return of Christ.
Again you will notice in all this, in all these signs, there
is not one word about some GREAT order of hier-archal Church
structure to prove to the world the Church of God is the true and
only body of Christ.
The largest "Christian'' church in the world today(with over
one billion members) claims that its church structure from one
head man down, is part of the proof that they are the true Church
founded upon the apostle Peter.
As we can see from the four Gospels, NOTHING COULD BE
FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER!
Famous King Arthur of British history who fought with his
noble Knights against the invading Anglo-Saxons, is famous in
part because of his establishing the "round table." He and his
top Knights, we would call them today by the name of "generals" -
all gathered round to discuss their plans of attack and defense,
seated at a ROUND table. King Arthur said he wanted it so, so
that there would be no head or no tail. All would feel as
important and as necessary as the next, including himself. In the
center of the table going in a full circle were the words: BY
SERVING EACH OTHER WE ARE FREE.
Christianity had been well established for centuries in the
British Isles before Arthur came on the scene. It had been
brought there by many of the original disciples of Jesus. It was
a much purer Christianity than came later to Britain via the
Roman Catholic church. King Arthur was a God fearing man and his
realm was founded upon the "good book." I'm sure he knew and had
read the words of Christ as found in the gospels, part of those
words being "the Truth shall make you free."
Arthur did not choose those words for his round table, but
took the teachings of Jesus that we have been looking at, and put
the heart of them into a phrase for his famous table -
"By Serving Each Other We Are Free."
If only the Church of God, its branches and its ministers,
down through the centuries, had always taken King Arthur's
attitude of heart, many problems springing from self-important
vanity and ego would have been eliminated, and much hurt and
damage and falsehood would have given way to humble teachableness
and growth.
There are MANY truths in the word of God, one of them is
what King Arthur had come to so clearly see. No organization, no
government, no body of people can survive for long if it is not
founded on some basic godly principles. Arthur knew service was
one of those true foundations to keep a people out of the chains
of bondage and sin, and so he had engraved in the round table: By
Serving Each Other We Are Free.
About 1500 years after King Arthur led his people with those
words, another leader over another part of the same peoples in a
different land, led his people with similar words that history
will etch into stone.
His words were: "Do not say what can my country can do for
me, but say, what can I do for my country."
Those words of President John F. Kennedy are the essence of
what Jesus taught His ministers and disciples.
Please allow me to paraphrase what Christ taught His
followers:
"If any one of you would desire to be the chief minister
with all and final authority. If any one among you would get
close to adopting the attitude of 'How can the other ministers
and people of God, the Church of God, serve me' then that
individual had better humble himself and go about serving
everyone that belongs to me, and for whom I gave my life. For I
did not come to put my feet up and be served by you all, but I
came to serve you. So you go and do likewise to each other. Do
not say,' what can I get from the Church' but ' what can I do
for the Church.' "
It is time for some in the Church of God to REPENT! To
repent of the rotten stinking, filthy, arrogant, conceited, vain,
attitude of mind and actions of words and deeds, that manifests
itself too often and by too many ministers towards other
ministers and members in the Church, an attitude of being a
self-righteous authoritarian dictator over others perceived to be
of lower in "rank" than themselves in the chain of Church
ministry and structure.
It is time for those who have been guilty of such errors to
humble themselves under the mighty hand of the Lord, and to
prayerfully re-study this whole subject of the MINISTRY and
CHURCH GOVERNMENT to see more clearly from the teachings and
examples of the New Testament what the plain truth really is!
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH IS STARTED
After Jesus had ascended to heaven(Acts 1:6-11) the
disciples were together in Jerusalem(v.5). Peter stood up and
spoke to them. Did that make Peter the head apostle? The account
does not say it did. Those who claim this proves Peter was chief
minister, must read into the account something that is completely
absent, and they do this to try to uphold a teaching that can not
be established with Biblical fact.
In any group of persons you will have dominant leader type
people who will naturally lead out, Peter was one of those
individuals. Many studies today have been done by Business Firms
looking for leaders to prove this human natural phenomenon.
Peter was a"'born leader" as we say.
He told the others that someone had to be chosen to replace
Judas (v.16-22). Now notice verse 23, " And THEY appointed
two...." It does not say that Peter chose two, or James, or some
other "chief/s" among the apostles, but it says "They" the whole
120 of them (v.15) chose the two.
The account does not tell us HOW they chose the two men. So
that indeed does leave room for some administrative variance
within the workings of the Church.
They could not decide which of these two men should take the
place and office of Judas. The teaching is clear, no apostle
standing up here to tell everyone that he and he alone had final
authority to decide the matter.
What did they do? The account tells us they prayed and cast
forth lots (v.24-26). It is not the purpose of this study to
examine what these lots may have been(the readers can avail
themselves with the Bible Commentaries for such inquiries).
Whether this was a voting ballot or pulling of straws makes no
difference to the point we want to make here.
NO ONE MAN DECIDED THE ISSUE! Not even two, or three, or
four, or some board of persons. The matter and decision to be
made was too LARGE and IMPORTANT to be left to one man or a few
men.
Peter certainly did not have sole authority to decide who
would take Judas' place. Not only that, but once that decision
was made, he did not have authority to ANNUAL it either!
Is this an example that some issues are only for God to
decide and an organization may have to resort to casting some
type of "lot"? Well yes it is and then no it isn't. Let me
explain.
Both men were qualified in the eyes of human beings. They
had met certain necessary criterion. Obviously, for whatever
reasons, the Holy Spirit was not giving the brethren any "clear"
or "obvious" mental answer as to which man should take Judas'
place within the twelve disciples.
This was a once in a life time problem, maybe a once in the
life of the New Testament Church. This was not an every year, or
every 10 year occurrence for the Church of God. It was unique!
God had chosen the twelve disciples - it was only fitting He
should choose the man who would become part of that special
company, after all that man would be given one of the thrones to
rule one of the tribes of Israel(Mat.19).
If an issue or situation should arise within a Church of God
organization that could be seen as just as important to the one
here in Acts, then I say this is an example left for us that
could be followed. But then, I must seriously question any
organization that believes it has a problem as important as
choosing one of the twelve apostles.
PETER'S POWER?
After the Holy Spirit had come on the day of Pentecost, the
apostle Peter was very bold in his preaching of Christ. Thousands
were converted by his sermons. Great miracles were done by Peter.
We can read of all the things that Peter did and said in the
first five chapters of the book of Acts.
Indeed it is true that Peter did take a leading role in the
early days of the Church. But is there any word in these first
chapters that Peter was chief or head in authority over the other
eleven apostles or the whole Jerusalem congregation? No! Not one
single word!
Can we find in these chapters or anywhere(we shall come to
Acts 15 later) in the entire book of Acts, where ANY apostle
claimed he was "boss" of the rest of them and they had to comply
with his demands and "jump to his tune"? No!
Does having the ability to speak with authority - preach
powerfully - do miracles - automatically qualify a person to be
chief or head of the Church? If it does, then the apostle Paul
would have been qualified to have dethroned anyone and taken over
the Church.
Look at his record! When some men wanted to boast of their
deeds and talents, and others were looking at these men with
great admiration, Paul said to the Corinthian church, "Seeing
that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.....are they
ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more, in labors
more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more
frequently, in deaths often" (2 Cor.11:18,23).
Paul continued to list his deeds for the gospel in verses
24-28. He was given visions and revelations of the throne of God,
possibly he was taken up to the throne of the Lord, although he
was unsure if it was reality or in the minds eye vision (chapter
12:1-7). At another time he told the Corinthians he spoke in
tongues more than any of them (1 Cor.14:18). There were times
when Paul did great miracles through the power of God's Spirit
(Acts 19:11-12). God used him to write 14 books of the inspired
New Testament scriptures. The number 14 is the number for
deliverance and salvation as used by God in His word. The number
7 is the number for perfection and completion. The number 2 is
for the Godhead(presently only the Father and the Son). Now 2 x 7
= 14. Paul was used to write not only salvation but DOUBLE
perfection.
With ALL THIS Paul never once wrote that he was the human
head of the Church, nor did he ever state that Peter or any other
man was the head of the Church under Christ. The nearest thing we
can find in Paul's writings is the acknowledgement that some
men were looked upon as leaders and pillars of strength in the
Jerusalem church: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went
up by revelation....but privately to them which were of
reputation. But of these who seemed to be somewhat...." Notice
what Paul goes on to add to that statement, " whatever they were,
it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man's person, for they
who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me, and
when JAMES, CEPHAS(Peter) and JOHN, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Galatians 2:1,2,6,9).
It is I think more than interesting to note the order of the
names of the individuals Paul stated "seemed to be somewhat" in
the Jerusalem congregation - Peter's name does not appear first
in line. If there is any significance to the order of names(and
that question could be very debatable) and if Peter had been made
head of the Church by Christ, then Paul was doing an injustice to
Peter's authority by placing his name after that of James'.
But the truth is, Paul is not stating in this passage that
any ONE man was head of the Jerusalem church or the Church of God
as a whole. There were leading men in the church at Jerusalem
just as there would be in any other local church where there was
a plurality of ministers. Yet that fact does not prove certain
ministers "lorded it over" other ministers with dictatorial
authority.
While we are on the subject of the order of names as used in
the NT I will take some time to answer the argument put forth by
some concerning Paul and Barnabas. Some have claimed that Paul
was "over" Barnabas - that Paul had authority over Barnabas. They
have given as proof of this, the order of names.
One Church of God organization in a piece of literature on
Church Government admitted that before Acts 13 the name of
Barnabas appeared BEFORE the name of Paul - see Acts 12:25 and
13:1,2. Then they went on to say that AFTER the Holy Spirit
separated Barnabas and Paul(Acts 13:1-3) for a special work, it
was Paul's name that appeared before Barnabas' name. They quoted
certain verses to prove this, thus claiming Paul had authority
over Barnabas. The verses they gave were as,
Acts 13:13,43,44-46,50; 15:2, 35.
Now that looks pretty good IF you believe there is
significance in the order of names, IF you believe the NT teaches
an authority "pecking order" of ministerial structure, and IF YOU
READ THE BIBLE WITH TUNNEL VISION!
It blows my mind that some would try to prove a point of
doctrine by giving you certain verses they claim shows the truth
they preach WHILE WITHIN THE SAME CHAPTERS ARE VERSES PROVING THE
OPPOSITE, if you believe the order of names has meaning in
authority.
Read carefully from Acts 13:4 all the way to chapter 15:35.
Ah,ah, did you spot the verses that some glide right over with
blinkers on their eyes?
There's one in chapter 13:7. The name of Barnabas is put
before the name of Paul, and that is AFTER verses 1-3. Another is
in chapter 14:12. Yes Paul was the chief IN WHAT? He was the
chief in speaking! Not authority! Paul like Peter was a fine
speaker. All ministers are to be able to teach(1 Tim.3:2), they
do not have to be great speakers or preachers. When conducting
evangelistic meetings as Barnabas and Paul were doing it is only
natural and wise to let the man with the gift of preaching do the
speaking most of the time.
Notice verse 14 of chapter 14. The name of Barnabas appears
BEFORE that of Paul's. Then after Paul's name was put before that
of Barnabas' in Acts 15:2 Luke(the writer of Acts) turns right
around and places Barnabas' name BEFORE Paul's in verse 12. In
verse 22 Paul's name is placed before Barnabas' by Luke, then in
verse 25 he again reverses it and puts Barnabas' name first.
Such is the folly of men who want to cling to false
teachings and will not be corrected by the word of the Lord. They
just do not have the "love of the truth" (2 Thes.2:10).
From reading the first few chapters of the book of Galatians
and the rest of the epistles of Paul, together with the book of
Acts, one thing becomes very clear to those who have an honest
heart and will accept the truth of the word. Paul acknowledged
there was a work of the Lord coming from Jerusalem, an
organization with leading men such as James and Peter, a work
that belonged to God, preaching the same basic truths that he
Paul and Barnabas and others were preaching. But not for one
minute or one second did he ever believe God was not also using
him and others to also do the "work of God."
Paul believed with all his might that he was just as much an
apostle as the twelve were. That he had just as much authority in
Christ as any of the rest. It is clear from the writings of Paul
that he did not believe in any hierarchy pyramid, one man down
authoritarian Church of God government, where men ruled over men
with dictatorial power. Paul respected other ministers who were
truly called and faithful to God. Paul had deep love and respect
for all of God's children, especially for those who went the
extra mile in serving the brethren and doing "the work." Paul was
a humble man, and God made sure he would stay that way by giving
him a "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor.12:7-9).
Paul was a submissive man, he was both submissive to God and
to man. Concerning his submissiveness to other men/brethren, we
can find many examples. A few will suffice. The account in Acts
9:23-25 was no doubt at the request of the disciples who did not
want to see Paul killed. Notice the humility Paul exhibited even
after being personally taught by Christ Jesus, in what he wrote
in Galatians chapter 2:1-2 (with chap.1;12). He was willing to
let other ministers examine his beliefs and teachings so nothing
would be done in vain. He recognized they also had the Spirit of
God and were able to ascertain truth from error.
What an attitude! Think about it! Jesus had personally
appeared to him on the road to Damascus and brought him to
repentance and conversion. He had been personally taught by
Christ. The Lord had given him many of the gifts of the Spirit.
He had performed healings and miracles. Yet, this man was willing
to be examined by some of the leading apostles to make sure he
had not run, or should run, in some useless vain manner that
would save no one.
Now that is some beautiful heart and mind. Every minister
who calls himself a minister of the Lord had better cultivate
that attitude of Paul.
He didn't go around acting like some pompous swell-headed
"know it all" from the number one University of the country. He
didn't proclaim to the world that he was the "only" apostle of
God. He never claimed that it was him who had the final authority
in the Church.
Those who can not be like the apostle Paul are destined to
find themselves wallowing in the mire of their own filthy
vainness with whatever religious empire they established being
taken away and given to others of more noble humility and
character.
How many ministers are willing to have their work and
teachings and writings, examined for possible errors by other
ministers filled with the Spirit of the Lord? In my experience I
am ashamed to say, it is very few. Even when done in the right
spirit of mind, most get their "back up" and think they are being
"attacked" if someone questions their teaching as being correct.
We may not all agree on every last little verse in the word
of God, but we should endeavor to disagree without being
"disagreeable."
Paul was willing for other reputable ministers to examine
the way he ran in the work of the Lord. Paul was willing to
submit to other ministers when it was right and correct to do so.
Another example of that can be found in Acts 21 and verses 17
through to 26.
What was Peter's power and authority? Well, it was no more
than Paul's! If Peter got out of line, if he was in complete
error, if he was in the wrong and committing sin, then Paul had
no hesitation in correcting him, and if need be in front of
others at that (Gal.2:11-21).
THE EARLY CHURCH AND COMMUNISM
There are some people who have put themselves into a
communal type of life. They all dress alike, eat together, work
together and share equally their pooled wealth. Often Acts
4:32-37 and 5:1-11 are quoted to justify this way of living.
Are these verses in Acts teaching this type of communistic
life for Christians? In verse 32 the multitude of disciples said
that their possessions they counted not just belonging to
themselves but to others also. That is an attitude of SHARING!
We must understand and remember that the Church was just
starting - people were being converted by the hundreds and
thousands(3, 000 on the day of Pentecost alone - Acts 2:41). They
had found the truth of God, they would be excited, joyous, and
naturally wanted to stay on in Jerusalem to rejoice with and
fellowship with the disciples who had been with Jesus for three
and one half years.
Imagine the monumental task it would have been just to have
fed and housed all those converts. They had come from all parts
of the known world to observe the feast of Pentecost and were now
converted to Christianity. Some were willing to sell their houses
and lands to give help to those in need. They gave AS every man
HAD NEED(v.45).
Yes, those who had some real-estate were willing to sell
some or all of it and give the money to the apostles who in turn
gave that money to those in need as the situation arose.
Even when they did sell a possession, it, the money, was
still THEIRS to do with as led by the Holy Spirit. "As long as it
remained unsold, was it not still your own? And (even) after it
was sold, was not(the money) at your disposal and under your
control?......" (chapter 5:4, Amplified Bible).
Ananias and Sapphira died because they LIED about the price,
not because they were unwilling to practice communism (see
chapter 5:3).
The NT Church never taught a communistic life style. God's
word teaches no such doctrine. But the word of the Lord does
teach a GIVING and a SHARING. A HELPING your brother as he needs
it (1 John 3:17-18).
There was a need at that time in the Church's early
beginning, an unusually LARGE need, and all who could and wanted
to help, feed, clothe and house the brethren, did so readily.
SEVEN ARE APPOINTED
As the Church grew there would(as with any growing
organization) naturally arise problems that would need resolving.
This is the case as we start into the sixth chapter of Acts.
Certain things were being neglected(v.1). This was brought
to the attention of the apostles. They called the other
disciples(many of them) and asked them to choose seven men, whom
the total 12 apostles would agree to appoint over this matter of
physical duties(v.l-4).
These seven men were chosen from among the "multitude of the
disciples." The apostles you will notice did lay down certain
qualifications that were to be found in choosing the seven. But
the initial choosing of these "diakonein" (today we call them
deacons) was done by the multitude of disciples.
No indication here of some head minister calling or
appointing seven of his personal choosing. Even the twelve
apostles did not do it all by themselves. They were quite
confident that the other disciples were qualified to find men in
whom was the Spirit of God, wisdom, and honesty.
Perhaps in this situation the multitude of disciples were
better qualified than the apostles in finding the right men, as
they were more personally and intimately acquainted with these
local men. Maybe they all lived in the same general area and
attended the local synagogues together.
Whatever the case, for this specific circumstance (which may
or may not arise today) the apostles felt the congregation should
get involved.
There had to be some system for choosing these men, but we
are not told what that system was they used. God merely gave us
the principle - we then have the liberty under the same situation
to work out the details. Perhaps all the disciples were asked to
submit a name either orally or in writing. Maybe it was a
"secret" ballot vote. Maybe some men even volunteered for the
responsibility. Whatever the method, one thing is for sure, it
was not some dictatorial man throwing his weight around who chose
them.
After this mutual search for the seven candidates it is
important to notice that the whole group of 12 apostles appointed
them to that duty. Verse three says: " whom WE MAY appoint over
this business."
I am sure that if the Holy Spirit had spoken to the twelve
that one or more of the seven was not suitable, they would not
have been appointed and the multitude would have had to find new
candidates.
What this means is that the bottom line, is that the
ministers have the last word on those chosen for the duties of
deacons.
This was a special situation, a never before situation in
the early life of the NT Church. It can not be used to claim the
NT Church of God is to be run from the bottom up, the members
picking by democratic vote their deacons and ministers.
Many Protestant churches so operate this way, but not one
verse in the NT can be found to support this view or practice. I
have personally witnessed members of a Protestant church hiring
ministers from a "preaching talent" contest, only they did not
call it that as such, but an "invitation" to preach with respect
to being hired. They chose a certain fellow who declined the
offer to go to another church, and then offered the job to the
runner up, who accepted.
God, through the Holy Spirit did things a certain way at the
start of the NT Church within certain circumstances of context,
because it was not already in place, and something needed to be
done to solve the problem. Acts chapter six and verses one to
seven was one of those contexts.
Later God inspired Paul to set down for the minister Timothy
and the Church of God, what specific qualifications were required
for the Eldership and deaconship (1 Timothy 3:1-15).
The word of God is clear that it is the already ordained
Elders in the Church who have the last word on who they will lay
their hands upon in ordination to Eldership or deaconship. The
members may have some input to ascertain or to help the Elders
ascertain that a man has basically reached the qualifications of
2 Timothy 3, but it is the Elders who must give the final
decision, and it is their hands that are laid on the candidate.
Any group of ministers within a local church or area of
churches would know over a period of time, by "their fruits" the
men whom God was calling to the ordained Eldership. The same
principle would apply to those worthy of ordination to
deaconship.
In a less structured situation more help from the
congregation could be needed to make sure 2 Timothy 3 was
followed and met. And in those circumstances the words of
Paul to Timothy(an already ordained Elder) would apply even more:
"Lay hands suddenly on no man...."(1 Tim.5:22).
To be continued
First written in 1983. Re-written and revised in 1996.
Church Government #2What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed STEPHEN'S WORK
One of the seven chosen men was a man called Stephen. It is
written that he did great wonders and miracles(Acts 6:8). He is
not called an Elder, he was one chosen to serve "tables" and the
brethren in physical matters. Yet he did WONDERS and spoke
very boldly.
Stephen was given some of the gifts of God's Spirit that
Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians 12.
In that passage of scripture Paul shows us that God can give
through His Spirit, ANY of the different gifts listed to ANY
member of the body of Christ, whether in the classified "ordained
ministry" or not. Paul in discussing Spiritual gifts is talking
to the whole congregation at Corinth not just the Elders (see
chapters 12:27 and 1:1-10).
We must always be careful not to "hand-cuff" the Lord in
what we think He should or can do through any human being.
At one point in Jesus' ministry the disciples found a man
doing miracles in His name, and because he did not belong to
their Group they asked Christ to give them permission to tell him
to stop! Jesus said: "Do not forbid him to stop, for no one who
does a mighty work in my name, will be able soon after to speak
evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us" (Mark
9:39-40).
How does this square you may ask with Jesus saying that
there would be one shepherd and one fold?
Quite simply this: All that are the children of God, with
the Spirit of God, belong to the ONE spiritual body of Christ.
The one true Church of God, the people of the Lord in whom is the
Spirit of Christ are scattered all over the world, they are
connected together through one spiritual organism called in
scripture "the body of Christ" and this has NOTHING TO DO WITH
MAN MADE CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERED in some physical
BUILDING on some physical piece of paper, in a physical CITY in
some COUNTRY on earth!!
Here in the gospel of Mark is the plain truth that God can
and does work with various persons in various parts of the
country or world, AS HE CHOOSES! And these persons may or may not
KNOW THE OTHERS EXIST!
How vain and arrogant of man to think or proclaim to others
that he and his work is the "only" work of God on the earth. I
can think of only one man who could have claimed correctly to
have been the only work of God on earth - that man was NOAH!
Elijah, from an honest heart, believed he and his disciples
were the only work of God on earth at the time, and in voicing
this to God he was answered with a resounding NO! The Lord told
him he was not the only work of God. The Lord had reserved 7,000
others who had not bowed the knee to Baal! Elijah DID NOT KNOW
THEY EXISTED! How foolish is the heart of man at times. How
deceivably pompous can the mind of man become, as to think God is
limited to one man and/or one organization at a time, for His
work to be done in the earth.
God is God! Man is not God, we did not make Him, it was He
who made us! He is the POTTER, we are now merely the clay. God
can at ANY TIME He chooses, raise up as many persons and as many
independent corporate organizations to do His work as He wishes.
It is not we humans who tell God WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and with WHOM,
He will work and do things. It is HE WHO TELLS US!
One large Church of God organization in this 20th century,
thought they were the only ones in the world doing the true work
of God. They eventually adopted the Roman Catholic doctrine of
Church Government and their head leader called himself the "only
apostle of God on earth." Back in the 60's before this
"head-master" became so vain with personal glory, the
organization did believe they were the only ones around with all
"these wonderful truths" of God. Then a few of their ministers
went to South America, into the hills and valleys. There to their
amazement they found peoples who believed and practiced all the
same basic doctrines they practiced and taught. These people even
observed the festivals of God and in some ways had more truth
than the USA organization, for they were observing the feast of
Pentecost on a Sunday which the organization in the USA thought
was error, but later came to see was the truth.
When will we ever learn that it is not God who needs us, it
is us who NEED GOD! Why if need be, the Lord could raise up the
stones on the road to preach His word. That being the case He
certainly is able to use different men and different corporate
organizations in different parts of the world to do His work, all
at the SAME TIME!
Peter was used by God to do a work towards the circumcision,
while Paul was used by the Lord to do a work towards the
UNcircumcision - so it is written, so it was done.
Well let me get back to the account in the book of Acts
about Stephen. Certain of the religious leaders and their
followers started to dispute with Stephen. Now he did not
say that he had no authority to discuss religious matters with
them. He did not run off to get permission from the chief apostle
or Church board in Jerusalem. He just disputed with them. And he
did it so effectively they could not withstand his wisdom. He was
brought before the council and defended himself so well answering
them with power and inspiration, it actually ended up costing him
his life (Acts 7:54-60). Stephen did ALL OF THIS and there's not
one word about him being ordained to some set "rank" of authority
in the Church. At best he was appointed to serve "tables."
This account alone(we shall see others later) should blow
away the idea that deacons and lay members are to just "pray and
pay" and leave the teaching and preaching and witnessing to the
truths of God to the ordained Eldership. If the Lord chooses to
use a deacon in a POWERFUL MIGHTY WAY for His truth and work, He
will do so. And who is any man to withstand God?
THE CHURCH IS SCATTERED
One famous preacher of the Church of God in this century
wrote a book before he died, and in it he had a section that he
was going to prove to his readers and followers that the lay
members were not to preach the gospel or go out expounding the
word of God to the world in general. He was trying to prove from
the scriptures that it was only the ordained ministers or elders
of the Church that were given that commission. He used for the
proof of his teaching verses from the beginning chapters of the
book of Acts, some before and some after chapter eight.
But like so many before him(and no doubt there will be
others after him) who wandered off into doctrinal error, he took
out the horse blinkers and wore them as he read the chapters he
would get his so called "proof texts" from. He read right over
and failed to show his readers a text that would have drilled
holes in his doctrine to sink it to the bottom of the sea.
That text friends is found in Acts 8. I want you to mark
this in your Bible and never forget it!
Let's begin with verse one: " And at that time(when Stephen
was put to death) there was a great persecution against the
Church which was at Jerusalem; and THEY(the 'ekkleesia' - called
out ones - the church) were ALL scattered abroad except the
apostles."
The CHURCH is made up of all the collective members in whom
is the Spirit of God and Christ. The Church is not the ministry -
the ministry is PART of the Church. The only part of the Church
that was not scattered abroad were the 12 apostles.
Now notice it, verse four: "Therefore they that were
scattered abroad (all the members of the Church, all but the 12
apostles) went everywhere PREACHING THE WORD!"
I did not put it there friend. It has been in your Bible all
these centuries. It was there when this leader I talked about
above wrote his book in which he tried to prove the exact
opposite. There it is in plain black and white, easy to
understand, no College degree needed.
Under certain circumstances and as He wills, when He wills,
God can use the any members of His Church to PREACH THE WORD! So
it is written, so it was done. God will not be limited by the
wishes or false ideas of men.
PHILIP PREACHES
Among the seven of the "diakonate" of Acts 6, was a man
named Philip. He also was given some mighty gifts of God's
Spirit. He was not of the twelve apostles. He was not an ordained
elder. But notice how the Lord used him: ".....then Philip went
down to the city of Samaria and PREACHED Christ unto them" (Acts
8:5). He also did miracles and healings!(v.6-7). God used Philip
to do a MIGHTY work in Samaria(v.8-12).
This deacon did not have to get the "okay" from some head
apostle before he went to do the work of the Lord. He did not
have to ask his local minister/pastor for permission to be used
by the Spirit of the Lord. The apostles in Jerusalem found out
AFTER the fact what work Philip had done in Samaria, and then
they as a collective decision, sent Peter and John to help
out(v.l4).
There is no indication or evidence in this section of
scripture that Philip was performing spiritual works that were
"out of rank" for his deaconship. That were only to be performed
by some man ordained to some rank of ministry.
This example alone should "blow to pieces" the idea that men
are ordained to a rank ministry and have certain duties or
workings they can not perform because those duties are only for
"higher" ranked ministers. Such false teachings are derived from
one Biblical error and one carnal human error.
The Biblical error is found in ONLY looking to the Old
Covenant and how God arranged things under that disposition,
while ignoring the fact that today we are under a New Covenant
and under that covenant certain changes have been made by God
Himself(i.e. physical circumcision is not required, a change in
the priesthood, no central city to worship God in, animal
sacrifices not necessary). The New Covenant clearly shows
by example and by direct teaching/commands, that the basic form
of Old Church/State Government is not to be the order for the New
Covenant Church of God during this present age.
The carnal human error is that of the heart of man venting
and taking pleasure in having dictatorial authority over other
men, which in turn leads organizations to establish a "rank and
file" system among its leaders. As Jesus said to His disciples,
that is how the unconverted nations rule among themselves, but it
was not to be so for His servants and followers.
The Lord is plainly showing here in Acts chapter 8, that if
He wants to take a deacon, or any man of the Church and use him
to perform miracles or healings or preach the word some-where, He
WILL DO SO! And He will do so without having to answer to any
other human man He ordained to the Eldership or not, and
certainly not answering to any man made rank system.
After the work Philip did in Samaria, God gave him another
assignment(v.26). He sent His angel to tell Philip to go to a
certain place and to meet a man of great authority under the
Queen of Ethiopia. Philip was used to expound the word of God
more clearly to this eunuch and baptize(a deacon baptizing? Yes!
And we shall see later that you did not even have to be a deacon
to baptize people. Now that should blow a hole in more false
doctrines of men) him into the very family of God(v.27-38).
I hope you are seeing the truths of God as never before. Too
many have been spoon fed, have had their thinking done for them,
have allowed men to manipulate the scriptures without "proving
all things and holding fast to that which is good." By reading
the Bible with an open and clear mind, by willing to be
corrected, the word of God and the Spirit of God will guild us
into all truth and as Jesus said: "The truth shall make you
FREE."
Again, the lesson to learn, and God gives that lesson to us
over and over again in the book of Acts, is to NEVER LIMIT the
Lord, especially under the New Covenant. He will work whenever He
wishes and with whosoever He chooses for the preaching of His
gospel and the saving of souls.
Another fine lesson here is that Philip did not become all
puffed up and self sufficient. At this juncture in his converted
life he did not know everything. He did not realize he had to lay
hands upon those he had baptized for the receiving of the Holy
Spirit. Peter and John taught him that when they came(v.14-17).
Philip was humble and worked with other men of God. Do you see
the TEAMWORK going on here in the early NT Church of God?
In passing, and while I'm talking about the "laying on of
hands" after baptism for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Some
may say that this example of Philip shows that it is only the
ordained Elders(Peter and John) that can perform this duty and
function. The very next example God gives us of Philip in the
same chapter shows this thought to be incorrect!
Philip ALONE, without Peter and John, is taken to meet the
Ethiopian eunuch. He only is used to teach him more clearly the
word of God. It is only Philip that the Lord uses to baptize this
man. No ministers(ordained/appointed) or apostles from Jerusalem
came along with Philip to lay hands on this eunuch after he was
baptized.
From the experience in Samaria concerning the laying on of
hands, Philip would have known now that he should do likewise,
after baptizing someone.
Before leaving this chapter and its examples and lessons,
there is one more thing to meditate on. The eunuch went back to
Ethiopia as a converted Christian, filled with the Spirit of God.
He was in a position of great authority(in the world of the
Ethiopian nation). He would have been very excited about his new
found truth. Do you think he would have been totally silent about
it? Do you believe he would never have shared the truth of God
with anyone in his nation, and others of importance in the
government? I believe he would have been used by God to do a
mighty work in Ethiopia for the spreading, teaching, and
preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit was very
very active in those days within the Church of God, the world was
being turned upside-down. Paul and others were later accused of
that very thing - turning the world upside-down with their
teaching and preaching.
God must never be hand-cuffed in what He can do, when He can
do it, and by whom He can do it!
PAUL IS CONVERTED TO CHRIST
On the way to Damascus to persecute the people of God,
Saul(later known as Paul) is struck down by a blinding light and
hears Jesus speaking to him. Blinded, Paul is brought to Damascus
where he is three days without food or drink (Acts 9:1-9). God
sent a man called Ananias, a disciple(the usual Greek word for
the word 'disciple') not an apostle or elder, to heal Paul and to
baptize him (v.10-18).
Here is a clear example of a disciple or a follower of
Christ, used by God to heal, to baptize, to lay hands upon a new
convert into the family of God and receive the Holy Spirit.
Saul or Paul was converted to Christ. He had a religious
background in Judaism, but now the clear truth of God's word was
revealed to him. The scriptures he had grown up on began to take
on new meaning. Paul did not now run off to some supposed "head
quarters" Church of God to come under their authority. He tells
us in the book of Galatians that Christ personally had him go to
Arabia and there He taught him. Then after returning to Damascus
for some unspecified time(from his conversion to returning to
Damascus was 3 years) he went to Jerusalem for a very short
period and visited only Peter and James the Lord's brother (Gal.1
:11-20).
This whole account shows a somewhat "no rush" no "big
concern" on Paul's part to get "in line" with those in the
Jerusalem congregation. It reminds me of the people I told you
about earlier in South America that the famous USA Church of God
found observing all the same basic doctrines as themselves. I
told you this happened in the late 60's. Well the USA
organization sent ministers back to them asking them to be a part
of their work and organization, and acknowledge their head leader
as God's end time "man of the moment." It was reported to the USA
Church of God headquarters that they were just
laughed at and told: "God we know, Christ we know, and Paul,
Peter, James, but who is....(the leaders name, which I will not
give here)."
I well remember from the publication of this USA
organization's inner magazine to its members(I was a part of
them) the article about discovering the existence of these
people in South America. Then like hot coals of fire nothing was
ever said about them again. It was many years later, when I was
personally talking to one of the very ministers who was sent to
visit them, I found out why the USA organization forgot about
them and went on as if they never existed. The South American
people of God had not only never heard of the Lord's supposed
human "king pin" leader, but they were not about to believe
he was God's only "apostle" for the end time, either.
The South American Church of God were not only correct about
keeping the feast of Pentecost on a Sunday, but they have also
been proved correct that God does not work through one "minister"
or apostle(if you want to use that word) at a time. For that
minister of the USA organization was never alone in what he
taught and preached(other ministers of his day in the Church of
God believed and taught the same truths, but went their separate
way. I now have the facts to prove that is true), is history.
New light and evidence is coming all the time that proves
God has worked with different ministers, in different parts of
the world, often during the same time frame, who did not always
know the others existed, but were teaching, preaching, and
practicing, the same basic doctrines, which often included the
observance of all the festivals of God as recorded in Leviticus
23.
A great deal of historical Church of God Sabbath-keepers and
related history has been done and is continuing to be done by
Richard Nickels. His books and articles can be obtained by
writing to: Giving and Sharing, PO Box 100, Neck City, MO 64849.
Paul, it is true, was a unique individual, with a unique
calling to conversion and into the ministry of Christ Jesus. His
calling was directly with signs and wonders, and personal
visitations from Jesus. No man was needed to ordain/appoint Paul
as a minister of the Lord. No ceremony of ordination in front of
others wherein men already in the ministry would lay hands on him
and so induct him as an Elder of the Church.
So, yes, God can do it that way IF He so chooses. After all
He is God. He is the potter and we are the clay. But that is not
the way the Lord does it MOST of the time. The book of Acts and
Paul's writings to Timothy and Titus, show that God works through
other ministers to ordain men to the ministry of Jesus
Christ(Acts 14:23), with at times input from the congregation.
As the Church grew spiritually and in literal membership and
appointed ministers/elders, God gave Paul inspired instruction
for the Church about the basic qualifications needed for any one
to be ordained to the pastor/eldership or deaconship (1 Tim.3;
Titus 1).
Such an undertaking is very serious business. So serious in
fact that it is not surprising we have two other very important
scriptures on this matter in the NT. The one is found in - 1
Timothy 5:22. The other in James chapter 3 and verse 1. Please
read this second one in the Amplified Bible translation, and see
some of the Bible Commentaries.
PAUL ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM
"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he wanted to join
himself to the disciples, but they were afraid of him, and
believed not that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26).
We have seen from Paul himself in the book of Galatians that
it was three years from the time of his conversion to the FIRST
time he went to Jerusalem. You may like to review this in
Galatians 1:11-20. It was a relatively short visit it would seem,
although we can not be sure of that. Paul says he abode with
Peter for 15 days. He does not tell us the exact length of his
stay in Jerusalem. He stayed with Peter for 15 days but he may
well have stayed with other brethren also, Paul just does not
give us all the details. After that visit to Jerusalem Paul was
in no hurry to return. It was to be 14, yes, fourteen years
later before he went back to that city - Galatians 2:1. And from
the following verse we see that he did not keep in very close
communication with the apostles and/or those in reputation at the
place where it all started, for, he was willing as we have seen
to let them examine his gospel among the Gentiles. That would
strongly indicate a severe lack on his and their part as to what
they and Paul had been doing/teaching and preaching over that
period of 14 years.
Obviously from all this Paul and those who worked with him
such as Barnabas, felt God was working with them just as much as
with those in Jerusalem. They did not feel the necessity or that
it was a doctrine of God, that one human man was in authority
over the Church and that they had to report to him, or get
permission to do this or that in the work of the Lord from some
board of men in a certain city.
Many believe the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15 came after
this second visit of Paul to Jerusalem. We shall look at that
important chapter of the book of Acts later.
So what are some of the lessons we can gain from the
calling, teaching, and preaching of Paul?
First: God is able and free to raise up any man at any time
for the work of the Kingdom and preaching of salvation. God is
able to reveal His truths to any person, at any point in time,
and in any area of the world, regardless of who else God may be
using at the same time. The overwhelming NT examples show that in
this age of the New Covenant, the Lord does not work with just
one dominant leader in His Church, that no one man has
dictatorial authority over the other ministers or members. In
this age God is using various ministers with spiritual gifts and
abilities as the Holy Spirit imparts.
Second: Those that God calls to the work of the ordained
ministry will, as led by the Spirit, work together in small or
large teamwork groups. Peter did not work as a single
self-sufficient minister, neither did the apostle Paul. Their
work was not always in the same area throughout their lives, and
they did not always have exactly the same ministers to work with
in their close immediate circle, but co-operate and work with
other servants of the Lord they most assuredly did do. None of
the apostles or elders believed or taught that any man was an
"island unto themselves." They all knew that "iron
sharpens iron" and the inspired proverb: "In the multitude of
counsellors there is safety" (Prov.11:14).
Third: The Lord directly called and ordained Paul to the
ministry. There is no evidence that he was ordained by other
human men. God is free to so ordain/appoint if He chooses, but
this is clearly by the teaching and examples of the NT, an
exception to the norm. God has established in the New Covenant by
example and direct command that men are appointed to the
Eldership by other Elders and by meeting certain qualifications.
MINISTERS ARE SENT
Acts chapter ten again shows us God directly inspiring and
working with a man, without that man having to give account of
his every move to other men. Peter is sent to the Gentiles to
bring salvation to them. There was within the early Church
freedom to work where the Holy Spirit directed.
God's Spirit should never be hand-cuffed by over
organization. It is written: "Quench not the Spirit........
where the Spirit of the Lord is there is l i b e r t y"
(1 Thes.5:19; 2 Cor.3:17). Then on the other side of the coin
liberty is to be used carefully (James 2:12).
As we have seen, God wants a respectful, loving, servant
attitude within His ministry and Church. He does not want a
minister or group of ministers "bossing about"
with high-handed conceit, another minister/s. Yet, He also does
not want a high-handed "one man show" attitude from any single
minister of His either.
Those that had gone forth from Jerusalem preaching the
word(Acts 8:4) had great fruits to show for it(see Acts 11:21).
So much so that the Church in Jerusalem, "sent forth Barnabas,
that he should go as far as Antioch" (v.22). This shows us that a
Church does have the right to ask a minister to undertake a
special assignment. I say ask, because I do not see where they
can demand - not within the Spirit of the Lord anyway. Notice
verse 25, Barnabas acting within his liberty as a servant of God,
goes to find Paul in Tarsus and brings him back to Antioch, where
they stay for a whole year as teachers of God's word (v.26).
In the 13th chapter of Acts we see the Holy Spirit leading
within a congregation of God's people. A job was to be done - not
a lot of ''red tape'' required - just be guided by the Spirit,
send the men with a special blessing(this was not an ordination
to the ministry - they were already ministers) and get out there
and do the work. For a time they also had John Mark with them
(v.l-13).
The next point we need to note is in chapter 14:23, ''And
when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had
prayed with fasting ." We find that FASTING and PRAYER
accompanied ordination. Fasting and prayer by the minister/s who
were to ordain to the Eldership other men was a serious
undertaking which required serious preparation and meditation.
In keeping with Titus 1:5 and Acts 20:17 we see that a
plurality of Elders were ordained in every church. It would seem
that the Lord is telling us that He wants to safeguard His sheep
by shepherding them with more than one shepherd to each fold.
This would minimize to some extent a wolf in sheep's clothing
coming and devouring the flock. I said minimize, not completely
stop it, as seen by what Paul said in Acts 20:29,30. We must
remember all of these examples can only be applied when there are
many churches, with many converts, and with many qualified men
who could be appointed to the Eldership. Any combination of the
above factors could mean that it may not be possible to have a
plurality of ministers in a single congregation.
Obviously there did not seem to be a large problem for Paul
and Barnabas to ordain elders - plural, in the churches, at that
time.
It will be asked: "Does not this verse contradict what Paul
taught Timothy(1 Tim.3:6; 5:22)?" Remember that in many of these
towns where Paul and Barnabas taught, there were older Jews or
Gentile proselytes who were very well versed in the scriptures
and could not be looked upon as novices by any means. As far as
not being in a hurry to ordain, we need to keep in mind that when
Paul gave that instruction to Timothy, the Christian Church had
to a large extent established itself in growth and structure.
Here they were at the beginning of a new era, different
circumstances do warrant different methods at times within the
liberty of God's law. At the start of the NT Church era it would,
for the sake of stability among the new converts, be very
important to have established leaders. They did not have Radio,
VCR, TV, Conference Call phone lines, or Cassette tapes.
THE JERUSALEM CONFERENCE
This part of Acts - chapter 15 - is of great value to us for
the understanding of how the NT Church of God worked as a team on
difficult issues. There is much in this chapter for our
edification.
1. Important doctrinal issues that effect the individual as
well as the stability of the Church as a whole, will arise from
time to time. Because differences arise which must be "ironed
out" does not mean the Church of God is not the body of Christ.
It is HOW those issues are resolved that proves the true
character and people of God.
2. Ministers from the various parts of the land and earth,
came together in conference at a designated location (verses
1-6).
3. The indications from verses 12,22,23,25, is that the
conference was an open forum with congregational members present.
Certainly the decision reached was approved by the whole
congregation.
4. There was much disputing. Time was given for all to speak
(v.7).
5. It would seem from verse 19 that James played a leading
role - maybe presiding as chairman. It was he that gave the
"judgement" that everyone agreed was the correct one. This by on
means teaches that James was head apostle, like a Pope of the
Church of God. As Paul had written to the Galatians, James was of
reputation and a pillar in the Jerusalem assembly, together with
Peter and John. If James was presiding as chairman, with his
wisdom and leadership abilities, it is only natural he would have
seen the "truth of the matter" and summed it all up as to what
the Holy Spirit was guiding them to do.
6. We notice that there was no voting on doctrinal issues.
It was not a case of the majority wins. God's truths that are
clearly taught by the word are not up for "voting on."
7. The truth was arrived at by two criterion: (a) By what
God had done through the Holy Spirit (b) By what the scriptures
plainly taught (verses 7-12 and 13-18).
PAUL AND BARNABAS SEPARATE
In verses 36-41 of Acts 15 we have recorded the different
opinions of two ministers, differences that could not at that
time be resolved, and which resulted in the two men who had
worked together for some time in the gospel, separating and going
their different ways to do the work of God.
What are the lessons we can learn from this?
1. It was not a difference in doctrine over-which Paul and
Barnabas separated, but what we would call today administration -
who was going with whom to do "the work."
2. Where administration of the work of the Lord is not
defined by or in opposition to the word of the Lord, FREEDOM is
allowed. Yet within that freedom men's ideas and personalities
may on occasion - clash! In most cases it should be able to be
solved, but this was one time it could not.
3. Paul and Barnabas remained servants and apostles of God.
Both continued to do the work of the gospel.
4. Despite the weaknesses and differences of men, God is
able to work with and in them, often turning what may appear to
us as adversity into VICTORY for Him. Truly, the Lord works in
mysterious ways at times His wonders to perform.
5. Neither Paul nor Barnabas took their disagreement to a
higher court of Elders, or some "chief" apostle over them, to try
and get the other "black listed" or kicked out of the ministry or
disfellowshipped.
IN RETROSPECT
What can we see as we look back on our study? I will list 10
points that I see.
1. Jesus calling His ministers and telling them that, no ONE
individual or small "board" of individuals would have total
dictatorial control and authority over the entire Church of God
or other Elders. Jesus taught that he who thought himself more
important and above the rest, had better be the greater humbler
servant to all.
2. A Church and ministry that was filled with the POWER of
the Holy Spirit. A driving zeal to get on with spreading the
gospel of the Kingdom of God.
3. As the Church grew and the physical burden increased, the
establishing of an ordained/appointed " Deacon - servant"
ministry (Acts 6) to help take care of such matters.
4. We see that the gifts of God's Spirit were boundless,
given freely as He saw fit, to the Elders(Acts chapters 2-5), to
the Deacons(Acts chapters 6-8), and to the whole membership of
saints(1 Cor.12 and 14).
5. God directly called others to the apostleship and
ministry(Acts 9). And ministers ordained other men to the
ministry(Acts 14:23).
6. Local churches and elders that had a great deal of
freedom within the law of God(Acts 11:19-26; 13:1-13).
7. Churches raised up with ordained elder S - (plural, Acts
14:23).
8. Brethren, Deacons, and Elders held together with the
common bond of the Holy Spirit, the love of God, and the same
basic fundamental truths of the word.
9. Major doctrinal issues resolved by ministerial
conferences with the members of the host congregation in
attendance, and participating in the decisions(Acts 15).
lO. A Church not handcuffed or weighed down with over
organization.
In closing this section of our study I must, because of
recent abuse within certain parts of the Church of God,
re-emphasize the teaching of Jesus about a humble servant
attitude that all His ministers and followers were to have
towards one another and towards the spiritually blinded of the
world.
Satan has devastated parts of the body of Christ in the last
30 years because this humble servant attitude was not maintained
by some Elders, and the sin of vain, authoritarian power and
dictatorial rulership was exhibited by various ministers over
other ministers and the brethren.
The words of Phillip Keller(a one time keeper of sheep) are
fitting at this point in our study. I will quote from chapter 3
of his book: A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23. We pick it up as he is
talking about the requirements needed for sheep to lie down.
" The second source of fear from which the sheepman delivers
his sheep is that of tension, rivalry, and cruel competition
within the flock itself. In every animal society there is
established an order of dominance or status within the group. In
a penful of chickens it is referred to as the 'pecking order.'
With cattle it is called the 'horning order.' Among sheep we
speak of the 'butting order.' Generally an arrogant, cunning and
domineering old ewe will be boss of any bunch of sheep. She
maintains her position of prestige by butting and driving other
ewes or lambs away from the best grazing or favorite bedgrounds.
Succeeding her in precise order the other sheep all
establish and maintain their exact position in the flock by using
the same tactics of butting and thrusting at those below and
around them..........Because of this rivalry, tension, and
competition for status and self-assertion, there is friction in a
flock. The sheep can not lie down and rest in contentment. Always
they must stand up and defend their rights and contest the
challenge of the intruder..........
This continuous conflict and jealousy within the flock can
be a most detrimental thing. The sheep become edgy, tense,
discontented and restless. They lose weight and become irritable.
But one point that always interested me very much was that
whenever I came into view and my presence attracted their
attention, the sheep quickly forgot their foolish rivalries and
stopped their fighting. The shepherd's presence made all the
difference in their behavior.......
In any business firm, any office, any family, any community,
any church, any human organization or group, be it large or
small, the struggle for self-assertion and self-recognition goes
on. Most of us fight to be 'top sheep.' We butt and quarrel and
compete to 'get ahead.' And in the process people get
hurt.........
In contrast to this, the picture in the Psalm shows us God's
people lying down in quiet contentment.......The endless unrest
generated in the individual who is always trying to 'get ahead'
of the crowd, who is attempting always to be top man or woman on
the totem pole, is pretty formidable to observe. In His own
unique way, Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd, in His earthly life
pointed out that the last would be first and the first last.
In a sense I am sure He meant first in the area of His own
intimate affection. For any shepherd has great compassion for the
poor, weak sheep that get butted about by the more domineering
ones. More than once I have strongly trounced a belligerent ewe
for abusing a weaker one. Or when they butted lambs not their own
I found it necessary to discipline them severely, and certainly
they were not first in my esteem for their aggressiveness.
Another point that impressed me, too, was that the less
aggressive sheep were often far more contented, quiet and
restful. So that there were definite advantages in being 'bottom
sheep.'
But more important was the fact that it was the Shepherd's
presence that put an end to all rivalry. And in our human
relationships when we become acutely aware of being in the
presence of Christ, our foolish, selfish snobbery and rivalry
will end. It is the humble heart walking quietly and contentedly
in close and intimate companionship of Christ that is at
rest.......When my eyes are on the Master they are not on those
around me. This is the place of peace.
And it is good and proper to remind ourselves that in the
end it is He who will decide and judge what my status really is.
After all, it is His estimation of me that is of consequence. Any
human measurement at best is bound to be pretty unpredictable,
unreliable, and far from final " (A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23,
pages 31-33).
To be continued.
First written 1983. Re-written and revised 1996.
Church Government #3What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed LOCAL CHURCHES
As the NT Church started to grow - first in Jerusalem - the
Lord began to show that the ministers(12 apostles) should not
undertake to try and do all the spiritual AND all the physical
duties. Seven, wise, Spirit filled men were chosen to take care
of "this business" (the physical duties) so the apostles
(ministers) could "give ourselves continually to prayer and to
the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:1-4).
The FORM of local Church Government began in Jerusalem.
There was always more than one Elder ruling or guiding (and it is
the ministers who guide the church, not a board of deacons, or
congregational members, see Heb.13:7,17; 1 Tim.3:1-5,
14-15; 4:11-16) the Jerusalem congregation.
Paul acknowledged to the Galatians, some such as James,
Peter, John, were of reputation and seemed to be 'somewhat' in
Jerusalem. He stated they were pillars, but he never stated
they(James,Peter,John) had all power and dictatorial authority in
all matters within the church at Jerusalem.
The Jerusalem church was large in numbers. There were other
apostles there besides the three mentioned by Paul. There were no
doubt also other Elders there also, who had been ordained after
the Holy Spirit had come on the feast of Pentecost.
Nowhere can we find by teaching or example that any NT
church was under the dominance of a few self appointed
demagogues, not within the ranks of God's true ministers anyway.
We can find a false minister ruling like a Hitler, one of the
churches and casting out the true brethren, see 3 John 9-10.
The Church of God at Jerusalem was a fine example for all
churches to follow in the apostolic age. It is the ideal left for
us also, as is the church at Philippi.
There is no teaching in the NT that one man was to have all
the authority over a local church. Instead the example is all
churches were guided by a plurality of Elders!
Never, if at all possible, should the guidance of a church
be placed in the hands of just one individual. The person on whom
everything depends might acquire too great an importance, become
the center, the "king pin" and eventually distract the believer
from looking to the one and only true leader - Christ Jesus.
Human nature is such that it is just too easy for man to
start following another man(it happened to the people in Corinth
- 1 Cor.1:12) and POWER can turn the head of even a true minister
of God if he alone has all authority. It does happen! It has
happened even during this twentieth century in the Church of God.
It is indeed a true saying that goes, "Power corrupts, and
complete power corrupts completely."
Each NT church was pastored and governed by a plurality of
Elders as the following scriptures show:
When Paul and Barnabas had completed a tour through a number of
places, we are told that, "....they ordained them elder-s(plural)
in every church" (Acts 14:19-23). While at Miletus, Paul,
"....sent to Ephesus and called the elder-s(plural) of the
church" (Acts 20:17). The letter to the church at Philippi is
addressed, "....to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at
Philippi, with the bishop-s......" or overseers, elders - plural
(Phil.l:l). To the church at Thessalonica it was written, "We
beseech you brethren to know them(plural) who labor among you,
and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you" (1 Thes.5:12).
Titus was to ordain elder-s(plural) in every city (Titus
1:5). The activities of the Jerusalem church were carried on by
elder-s(plural), see Acts 15:1,2. And those who were sick were
instructed to call for the elder-s(plural) of the church for
prayer and anointing (James 5:14,15).
So clearly taught in the NT scriptures is this pattern, it
is hard to understand why so much of Christianity ever departed
from it. But then so many truths of the word of God have been
departed from by so many.
We need also to be honest with the instructions and examples
left us by the NT church and admit that, there is no evidence to
support the idea that churches were governed by the lay members.
Lay persons were not authorized by God to ordain, to hire,
to fire ministers. They could bring their serious complaints
about a minister to another minister for judgement and
corrections (1 Tim.5:19,20). The lay members could not vote
on what would be the doctrines of the Church of God. They could
be present at important ministerial conferences as seen from Acts
15 and given proper respect by all. What could the lay member do
if after taking their grievances of an Elder/s apostasy into sin
or doctrinal error to other ministers and no repentance was
forthcoming, and the local church was falling into practicing
unrighteousness? They could leave that minister/s and attend
a congregation where the elder/s were faithful to the Lord and
truth was being practiced.
I also realize today that it can be very difficult in some
small Churches of God to find men(plural) who are called to
function as Elders. Often it is fortunate if there is ONE
who has met the qualifications given by Paul in 1 Tim.3. If
there is only one man who can be appointed as elder, what can be
done to safe guard against corruptions and vanity, on the elders
part, and idolizing him on the part of the congregational
members.
Here are a few suggestions.
1. A single local pastor/overseer together with the congregation
should diligently search for, find and maintain, contact(via
letter, e-mail, tapes, magazines, phone etc.) with other Elders
in other local churches. This should be done to inter-act as much
as time and distance allows, so the single Elder church is not
isolated.
2. A single Elder congregation should try as distance and
expenses allow, to have other Elders from churches with the same
beliefs, visiting and speaking and fellowshipping with them.
3. The one Overseer church must make sure that the Pastor is
using the gifts of the Spirit to the fullest, as given to the
saints. A true Elder under these circumstances will help, teach,
train, give every opportunity for other men to be used of the
Lord as the Eternal wills, and so the door is always open for
more men within that congregation to be called and appointed to
the Eldership ministry. He will regularly be encouraging the
congregation to keep praying that "God will send more laborers
into the harvest." Local men who can meet the qualifications of
1 Tim.3 and so join him in the Eldership.
THE EXAMPLE OF PHILIPPI
Paul founded the church at Philippi - his first in Europe -
during his second missionary journey(Acts 16). As we read the
first and last number of verses in chapter four, it is clear that
there was a special spirit of love and giving between Paul and
the brethren in Philippi.
Notice the governmental structure of the church there:
"Paul and Timotheus to all the SAINTS(believers) in Christ Jesus,
with the BISHOPS(elders/pastors) and DEACONS(servants)"
(Phil.l:l).
There were OVERSEERS(Bishops/Elders)-plural, governing the
church at Philippi. There were DEACONS(plural) serving the
church, and there were all the SAINTS(plural) at Philippi.
The church founded by Paul followed the example that the
Jerusalem church years earlier had been guided to adopt - a
plurality of ministers to oversee the spiritual and physical work
of the Lord - a plurality of deacons to administer the physical
duties of the church under the Elders. Both groups working to
serve the saints of the church, and ALL working together to
spread the gospel to the entire world as their means allowed
them, and as the gifts of the Spirit were distributed among all
present.
All of this done with love and respect of each other. That's
how it was between Paul and the church at Philippi - that's the
example - that's the ideal for us to follow!
THE OVER VIEW
As shocking as it may sound to some, the NT never designates
one particular town or city as "headquarters." There are no such
words as "the headquarters of the Church in Jerusalem" in the NT.
Not one writer even came close to claiming Jerusalem as the
"headquarters church" or any such title.
If any did think it was Jerusalem because the "temple" stood
there, then God put an end to that idea in 70 A.D. with the
destruction of the temple under the Roman boot. As Jesus said to
the woman at the well: ".....believe me, the hour comes, when you
shall neither in this mountain nor yet in Jerusalem, worship the
Father........the hour comes and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for
the Father seeks such to worship Him" (John 4:21-23).
The NT never designates any one man as chief apostle or
elder. All were equal as ministers, showing mutual submission and
humble respect to each other (1 Peter 5:1-5). All were
individually free to do God's work as led by the Holy Spirit and
within the bounds of the law of the Lord, yet all worked
together(as best they could for the age they lived in, and their
differing personalities and callings and gifts) to "make
disciples of all nations."
From the writings of Paul, and examples of the book of Acts,
we see different Church of God congregations working together to
serve the brethren(when in times of need during periods of
famine) and the ministers.
There is no way to close our eyes to the fact that the body
of believers during the apostolic age were divided into various
Church of God "camps." You had the work that the Jerusalem church
was doing. You had the work that God called Peter to do(and
probably others with him) - going to the circumcision. You had
the work that Paul and Barnabas were called to do by the Holy
Spirit. Then later the work Paul(and others with him) did to the
uncircumcised. There was the work Barnabas went off to do(and no
doubt some others with him). I am sure the Ethiopian eunuch that
Philip baptized did a work in Ethiopia. Apollos had his work in
the Lord.
It is clear in Paul's epistles, some were "with him" in the
work God was doing in "that branch" of the Church. Some were with
him in a "somewhat" way, others with an "off and on" way, while
some were fully 100% all the way with Paul and his "work of the
Lord."
There were brethren who were probably 100% with the branch
of the work that Peter was doing. Others were fully behind
Apollos and that branch of God's work. Barnabas I'm sure had his
faithful supporters.
If they had lived in our 20th century their work of God and
supporters would probably have legally registered as a charitable
work with the government and country they were living in, whereby
also having a legal name. So the many branches of the Church of
God today is not really so new after all. The apostolic age was
very similar in many respects to our age concerning the working
of the whole body of Christ.
God, through Paul only took exception to this somewhat
natural way of man and circumstances, when it exhibited itself in
carnal sin.
When the brethren allowed puffed up vanity, pride, and
arrogance to dominate their attitude into thinking their little
branch of the body of Christ was the only true work of God
on earth, and the only place where the Spirit of the Lord could
be found. When brethren started to look down their long vain
noses at other brethren. When some started to "compare" men with
men, and ministers with ministers. When they thought and voiced
that their group and their ministers were "the greatest" and
beyond that to the "only ones" then Paul was inspired to CORRECT
them without pulling any punches, see 1 Cor.1:10-31; 3:1-23;
4:1-21.
Read the above sections of scripture in a modern
translation. Let the corrective words sink deep into your mind.
Realize what was going on and the carnal party spirit being
exalted. Paul had to painstakingly prove to them that Christ was
"in charge" of His work. All true ministers of God such as Peter,
Apollos, and he Paul, belonged to Christ and were being used
where, and in what way, with what gifts they had been given, to
do the will and work of Jesus.
What a sad commentary is todays branches of the true Church
of God. While most of them preach and teach the same basic truths
and doctrines of the Lord, too many of them (their members and
ministers) act as if they had no idea there were other branches
of the vine out there, and many of those branches came from the
very same single branch at one time, the ministers all being a
part of the parent ministry. Now many of them display an attitude
of contempt and disdain towards each other, even to the point
of pretending the others do not exist.
The local churches were not governed/ruled/cared for, by
one head elder or by a "church board" of deacons or church
persons, but by a plurality of elders who were the bishops or
overseers, and who were helped by the servants of the "diakonate"
- deacons who administered the physical duties under the guidance
of the ministers, and who served the saints, respecting them as
also part of the team(again I refer you to Acts 15).
Each local church supported the local elders and other
ministers(out in the mission field) with their everyday
needs(personal and for the gospel) as the word of God
instructed and their generosity(over and above their duty)
allowed.
We today do live in an age that in many respects is far
different than the first century A.D. One of those differences is
we have the power to MASS evangelize via Radio, TV, Video, and
Magazines. Someone must have the responsibility to function in
those work stations if they are used to spread the gospel. The
Holy Spirit gives gifts of wisdom, knowledge, helps, and
governments (1 Cor. 12).
It is then only common logic and correct administration to
appoint to the work of mass evangelism, those who have the talent
and gifts to do such work for the Church.
Every person in the body of Christ has a part to play as
Paul so thoroughly explained in 1 Corinthians 12. Everyone is not
the hand, everyone is not the head, everyone is not the foot. The
body is not one member but many, yet the many members make one
body. Everyone is needed and necessary for the harmonious
function of the body.
This is a truth, yet it is also a truth that the elders
collectively have the oversight and pastorship(shepherds serving
and caring for the sheep of the flock) for the whole body and for
the whole work of that body.
We need to meditate on the words of Paul as found in
Ephesians 4:11-16. I will quote those word here as given by the
Amplified Bible.
"And His gifts were (varied; He Himself appointed and gave
men to us) some to be apostle(special messengers), some
prophets(inspired preachers and expounders), some
evangelists(preachers of the Gospel, travelling missionaries),
some pastors(shepherds of His flock) and teachers. His intention
was the perfecting and full equipping of the saints(His
consecrated people), (that they should do) the work of
ministering toward building up Christ's body (the church), (That
it might develop) until we all attain oneness in the faith and in
the comprehension of the full and accurate knowledge of the Son
of God; that(we might arrive) at really mature manhood - the
completeness of personality which is nothing less than the
standard height of Christ's own perfection - the measure of the
stature of the fullness of the Christ, and the completeness
found in Him. So then, we may no longer be children, tossed (like
ships) to and fro between chance gusts of teaching, and wavering
with every changing wind of doctrine, (the prey of) the cunning
and cleverness of unscrupulous men, (gamblers engaged) in every
shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to mislead. Rather,
let our lives lovingly express truth in all things - speaking
truly, dealing truly, living truly. Enfolded in love, let us grow
up in every way and in all things into Him, Who is the Head,
(even) Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One. For because of Him
the whole body (the church, in all its various parts closely)
joined and firmly knit together by the joints and ligaments with
which it is supplied, when each part (with power adapted to its
need) is working properly (in all its function), grows to full
maturity, building itself up in love."
THE MINISTRY - ITS FUNCTIONS
We read about elders, bishops, apostles, evangelists,
pastors, and teachers. Do these names refer to different offices
of RANK within the church?
By a careful study of the scriptures and the Greek NT, the
word of God shows that EVERY minister of the Church is a bishop
and pastor as well as a teacher and elder.
Consider the following evidence from the scriptures on this
point:
Paul instructed Titus, "Ordain elders in every city as I
have appointed you" (Titus 1:5). Then Paul went ahead and
explained the qualifications of these elders and said that
an elder is a bishop(v.7). Note the word "for" connects verse 7
with verses 5 and 6.
Plainly the elders in each local church in every city were
bishops which in the Greek means "overseer."
This is quite different from the commonly assumed idea that
a bishop bears rule and authority over a group of churches or
less important ministers.
This truth is also seen in Acts the twentieth chapter.
Paul, "....sent to Ephesus, and called the ELDERS of the
church...."(v.17). Then in speaking to these elders he said:
" Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to the flock over
which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS (bishops - same
Greek as in Titus)" verse 28.
So again we see that elders and bishops are the same!
Then Paul exhorted these elders of Ephesus, "to feed" (Greek
means pastor) "the church of God...."
These elders from Ephesus then were referred to as bishops,
and pastors as well as elders. All of these expressions referring
to the SAME office or function.
Then any minister of God, can at any time, be referred to
as, i.e. elder Jones, or pastor Jones, or bishop Jones. He is all
these words mean from the moment of his ordination, regardless as
to whether he is overseeing one or more individuals or one or
more local churches.
The above truths can be studied in such works as "Word
Studies in the New Testament" by Robinson, Earle, and other Greek
scholars.
APOSTLES, PROPHETS, EVANGELISTS, PASTORS AND TEACHERS?
Where do they fit into all this? Are they RANKS within the
ministry? Notice! "And God has set some in the Church, first
apostles, secondary prophets, thirdly teachers(l Cor.12:28).
In Ephesians 4:11 Paul adds "evangelist" after prophets, and
expands teachers to "pastors and teachers."
We have seen that all elders are pastors and bishops and
overseers. They are also teachers, for we see that one of the
qualifications for a bishop is that he is able to teach - l
Timothy 3:2.
Pastors and Teachers are the same - an ordained/appointed
minister - an elder. But not ALL elders were apostles or prophets
or evangelists in the strictest sense of those words.
It is something like this: All people living in the USA are
Americans, but not all Americans are Californians.
Who decides which man will be an apostle, or prophet, or
evangelist? Do men, other ministers pick an individual and ordain
him to the "rank" of prophet, or evangelist, or apostle? THERE IS
NO VERSE IN THE ENTIRE NT TO UPHOLD SUCH AN IDEA. If it is for
man to so do then truly it would be a ministry built on rank. But
what says the word of God? "And God(not man) HAS SET some in the
Church." God alone must determine who does what function in the
ministry. True, God uses His Holy Spirit to lead and inspire
other ministers concerning various functions that some elders
will perform as needed in the Church and as their individual
gifts allow. Such is an example in Acts 13 with Barnabas and
Paul.
And there may be certain prayers offered and a special
laying on of hands dedication for the work to be undertaken, BUT
you will notice in that example no person was ordained to another
"rank" of ministerial authority and power over other ministers.
Nor can any example of any Roman Catholic Church type rank
ministers be found in the NT.
Some minister/s may ASK and REQUEST another minister to
perform or undertake a certain task or job, but the minister has
the right to accept or refuse, God being the guide and his
individual circumstances coming into consideration. Again, there
should be an attitude of loving co-operation and understanding on
all sides. Maybe much prayer is needed, sometimes prayer together
with fasting is called for. All circumstances must be considered
including those of the wife of the minister called upon by
others.
Certainly the life of a minister of God and his wife(who is
also a part of his ministry) is a life of service to the flock of
the fold, but in some branches of the Church of God there has in
the past been too much "barking" and ordering around of each
other as if some were masters over puppy-dogs. Loving respect
tied together with humility is what Jesus wants from all His
servants as they work together to feed the sheep and make
disciples of all nations.
GOD HAS SET SOME in the Church, "FIRST (not in rank but
function in spreading the gospel) apostles, SECONDARY (in
function in proclaiming the good news) prophets (and evangelist
added in Eph.4:11), THIRDLY (in function not rank) teachers
(pastors in general, Eph.4:11), after that miracles, then gifts
of healing, helps(deacons), governments(those with good business
and administrative skills), different tongues"(1 Cor.12:28).
A STUDY OF FUNCTIONS
In studying the Greek words and examples in the NT on the
various functions of the ministry, I believe we can come to these
basic conclusions:
1. An APOSTLE was never an office of absolute, dictatorial
authority, but was "one sent" to preach the truths of the Kingdom
of God to a large area. As such it was a calling and commission
to do God's work, not some lofty rank within the Church. Peter
was an apostle and also an elder, as was John also (1 Pet.l:l;
5:1; 3 John 1).
2. PROPHETS were either inspired fore-tellers of events(such as
Agabus in Acts 21:10-12), or powerful preachers who taught within
the Church (1 Cor.14). Prophets of the latter type are most
definitely with us today in the Church, and prophets like Agabus
will come again before this age comes to a close. Some ministers
have a special gift to understand and put together the many
prophetic passages of the Bible, that could also be classified as
fulfilling the function of prophet.
3. EVANGELISTS were ministers who primarily preached to the
UN-believers, in contrast to Prophets who mostly preached to the
believers. An "evangelist" was a minister who had been given the
special gift of inspired preaching to the public at large. He
could also be pastoring one or more churches. The man Timothy was
such a person and elder. It is obvious from Paul's writings to
him that he was pastoring at least one church, and probably more,
yet he was requested by Paul to "do the work of an evangelist"
(2 Tim. 4:5). So it is understood he had the ability to function
in that office also.
4. PASTORS and TEACHERS. Many Greek NT scholars believe this is
referring to the one office and function of the eldership in
general, who were not fulfilling any of the above specific
functions.
5. ELDERS usually meant an older person in age as well as more
mature spiritually. And though used in reference to all the
ministry, was used by Paul to connote those among the
congregation who were already elders - already doing the work of
the ministry and now should be officially ordained/appointed in
recognition of that fact (Titus 1:5).
6. DEACONS were servants of the Church to administer much, if not
all, of the physical duties (Acts 6). Great was their work and
responsibility - great was their need for wisdom and other
qualities (Acts 6:3; 1 Tim.3:813). They, like anyone else in the
body of Christ, could receive any of the gifts of the Spirit
(Acts 6:8). Though not a part of the eldership ministry, at times
and under special circumstances would receive the gift of
powerful preaching as other congregational members did (Acts
8:1,4-8,12; 11:19-22).
7. DEACONESSES as Phebe(Rom.16:1) were women who served in the
Church, not only among other women but men also and the ministers
(Rom.16:2). The Greek had no separate word for female deacons -
the one Greek word covered both sexes. Contrary to the opinion of
some who think Paul was a male sexist and "put down women" is the
fact of many verses in Paul's letters where he had nothing but
high respect for women, and commended many to different church
congregations, with loving commands that they receive them with
all honor and dignity, as faithful servants of the Church and as
co-workers with him in the gospel.
Yes, there was and is a ministry in the Church of God. A
ministry that emphasized SERVICE more than being served - gentle
encouragement more than strong rebuke. Being "helpers of your
joy" more than policemen or authoritarian rulers. A ministry that
emphasized visiting, counselling, anointing the sick, teaching
truths, preaching truths, and encouraging the brethren to remain
steadfast to the "faith once delivered" more than criticizing or
condemning.
The ministry of the Church was seen as a life time calling
or profession which God placed upon a man. The apostle John was
functioning as an Elder right up to his natural death. Of course
I say this in the context that all normal mental faculties are
working correctly. There is no teaching or example in the NT to
suggest the appointment to the Eldership was limited to just a
chosen time frame of weeks, months, or years. All natural
reading of God's word shows the latter idea, to be just that,
an "idea" from man. Unless the man clearly had dis-qualified
himself by not upholding the qualifications to Eldership
as outlined in 1 Tim.3, he was when accepting the call to
spiritual overseership within the church, accepting an
appointment for the rest of his life. His functions and work load
as an Elder could vary along the way, from MORE to LESS,
depending on the situation, his health, the needs of the
churches, and God's giving of gifts to do the work.
There were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and
deacons, but not necessarily in that order, and not every local
church had all of those ministry functions within its membership.
An elder could have one or more FUNCTIONS at the same time!
He could be a Pastor/Teacher in a local church, and an Evangelist
at the same time. Or he may function for a time primarily as an
evangelist. A minister may function both as an Apostle and
Evangelist. Or an Apostle may function for a time as a Pastor and
Evangelist. A Pastor could also be a Prophet at times. And so it
went and so it is as the Spirit of the Lord directs and gives
gifts to men. Paul at times was functioning as an elder/pastor
in a local church, an evangelist, as well as being an apostle -
all at the same time!
No one seemed to be keeping record but God, and a few carnal
minded enemies that had it in for Paul and others. There was a
work to be done and doing it was the prime concern for the true
men of God.
Jesus, as the head of the Church would decide WHO did WHAT
and WHEN.
LIVING OFF THE GOSPEL?
A true minister of God is a man who knows he has been called
to a life long service of unselfish giving of his time, energy,
and ability, to teach the word of the Lord to others.
It is a call to be employed not of men but of God - an
employment that is really a full time job - 24 hours a day - 7
days a week if required.
His boss(Jesus) can call on him to work in pastoring,
teaching, visiting, anointing the sick, performing weddings,
conducting funerals, as well as the basics of studying the
word and prayer. All this and more he can be called upon to
perform in his duty as a servant of the Most High and as an Elder
in the Church of God.
The true servant of the Lord has not been called to the
ministry to see what physical things he can accumulate for
himself, to see how much personal wealth he can acquire for his
family from others. He is, like Paul before him, willing to give
up all for the service of Christ. He is willing to labor
abundantly, suffer persecution and imprisonment for the gospel,
face perils from every direction for the works sake, going
without many of the comforts of life if needs be, and willing to
care for the Church of God (2 Cor.11:23-28).
This is the true minister of God! A servant to the people of
God, and the slave to his master the Lord Jesus Christ. He has
been called to do a special work within the body of Christ, and
in the course of doing that work sometimes the comforts and
stability that most members of the Church experience may have to
be sacrificed.
But the question must be asked and answered: Can the servant
of the Lord LIVE OFF the people he is serving?
Paul had to answer that question for the church at Corinth.
His answer is recorded in 1 Corinthians 9:1-18. The LIVING BIBLE
gets to the heart of the truth of his words.
"I am an apostle, God's messenger, responsible to no mere
man. If in the opinion of others, I am not an apostle, I
certainly am to you, for you have been one to Christ through me.
This is my answer to those who question my rights." Some were
saying Paul had no right to live off those he served. "Or don't
I have any rights at all? Can't I claim the same privilege the
other apostles have of being a guest in your home? If I had a
wife, and if she were a believer couldn't I bring her along on
these trips just as the other disciples do and as the Lord's
brothers do? and as Peter does?" Peter and others were married.
Celibacy for the ministry as taught by the Roman Catholic Church
can not be found in the pages of the Bible. Those ministers with
wives often travelled together at the expense of the brethren.
"But must Barnabas and I alone keep working for our living,
while you supply these others?" The people at Corinth were not
against supporting in a physical way the ministers of Christ, but
they would not support Barnabas and Paul for some reason.
"What soldier in an army has to pay his expenses? And have
you ever heard of a farmer who harvests his crop and doesn't have
the right to eat some of it? What shepherd takes care of a flock
of sheep or goats and isn't allowed to drink some of the milk?
And I'm not merely quoting the opinions of men as to what is
right. I'm telling you what God's law says. For in the law God
gave to Moses He said that you must not put a muzzle on an ox to
keep it from eating when it is treading out the wheat. Do you
suppose God was only thinking about oxen when He said this?
Wasn't He also thinking about us? Of course He was! He said this
to show us that Christian workers should be paid by those they
help. Those who do the plowing and the threshing should expect
some share of the harvest. We have planted good spiritual seed in
your souls. Is it too much to ask in return for mere food and
clothing? You give to others who preach to you, and you should.
But shouldn't we have an even greater right than them?"
Paul and Barnabas were instrumental in raising up the church
at Corinth.
"Yet we have never used this right but supply our own needs
without your help. We have never demanded payment of any kind for
fear that," not that they couldn't have asked for support, but
for fear that, "if we did you might be less interested in our
message to you from Christ."
They were not willing to give to Paul and Barnabas, but as
Paul found out they were willing to give physical support to
other ministers that preached to them.
"Don't you realize that God told those working in His Temple
to take for their own needs some of the food brought there as
gives to Him? And those who work at the alter of God get a share
of the food that is brought by those offering it to the Lord. In
the same way the Lord has given orders that those who preach the
gospel should be supported by those who accept it. Yet I have
never asked you for a penny."
A true minister of God will preach the word, but will not force
or demand any physical thing from those he serves. He will work
at an other job to supply those needs if he must, as Paul did at
times. He was by physical trade a tent maker.
"And I am not writing this to hint that I would like to
start now. In fact, I would rather die of hunger than loose the
satisfaction I get from preaching to you without charge."
That is the unselfish attitude of the true minister of God.
" ..........under this circumstance, what is my pay? It is
the special joy I get from preaching the Good News without
expense to anyone, never demanding my rights."
It was right for Paul to live off the gospel, but often he
did not.
TODAY'S ARGUMENT
In certain quarters some argue that overseers/elders should
never live off the saints, but should always hold a secular job
to support themselves and their families. Often this argument is
held on to by quoting just certain verses of scripture, while
ignoring others. Much deception has been promulgated in religious
circles by so reading and teaching the Bible.
Paul certainly held a job of tent making AT TIMES, but
nowhere can we find any example or statement that Paul ALWAYS
provided for himself because he worked full time at a secular
trade or occupation. After the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, we
cannot find any statement that any of the apostles worked full
time at a secular job to support themselves and their families,
for the necessities of this physical life. Some may have
worked at a trade some of the time, or had investments they lived
off, but we cannot know that either, because the word just does
not say. One thing we are told, people did GIVE to the church,
this we can plainly see from the early chapters of the book of
Acts.
It is proper at this time in our study to answer a few
arguments, and put the record straight. Some do not like this
concept of a paid ministry, because such would single out
certain ones that could be thought of as "a class or office of
people" somehow special(whatever they mean by special) because
the church would be employing and paying them for their work,
above all the others in the church. So they either do cartwheels
with the word of God to make it try and say something it does not
say, or they just do not want to discuss the topic of "paid
ministers." To them all members are "ministers" (and I
thoroughly expound all that in part two and three of this book),
so the idea of "church employed/paid ministers" doing spiritual
work, causes a problem, for it would indeed put certain men in a
class or office different than the rest of the membership
ministers. And if all are ministers or elders, who would decide
which men would be chosen to be full time and paid by the
congregation? A lot of in-fighting, politicking, and wire
pulling(brown nosing it is also called), could go on. Many church
groups have split in two or more ways for far less wrangling.
If to solve or never have to face such a problem, you teach
there never was a paid ministry in the NT church, then we are
back to showing that argument cannot be founded upon the word of
the Lord.
Was Jesus a minister of God? Oh, you bet! Was Jesus
called, and sent by God the Father to do His work? Christ
Himself said many times that He was sent by the Father! Did
Jesus work at fulfilling that calling? Yes indeed He did, very
much so. He did it for THREE and ONE HALF years - FULL TIME!!
Jesus did not work at some secular job while being employed
in the Father's ministry for those years. Nor did the chosen 12!
Peter stated they had "forsaken all and followed you" - Jesus(see
Mat.19:27).
Even a young child reading the gospels can see that Jesus
and His 12 disciples, WERE FULL TIME IN THE MINISTRY! They lived
off those they served and whatever money or investments they had
put away, which for some of them(who were not at all wealthy)
would have been very little if any.
Concerning Jesus collecting tithe money from people. One
thing is for sure, there is NO SCRIPTURE that says He and His
band of men DID NOT collect or receive tithes. They did have a
treasure bag, Judas was keeper of it the gospels relate. Further
evidence that they MAY have collected or been given tithe money
is the fact that the people living under the Old Covenant did
believe in tithing, it was part of their heritage and culture.
Jesus would certainly have had no hesitation in accepting tithes
that some would have thought belonged to the priesthood of the
temple under the OC law, because Jesus was GREATER than the
temple. He was the God who instituted the temple laws in the
first place.
Whether or not they collected or were given tithe money at
that time is beside the point. Jesus and His band(inner core of
men) did not have secular jobs during the three plus years of
Christ's ministry. They were full time in the service of the
Lord, and lived off 1) their investments, bank accounts 2) what
people gave them in the way of food, lodging, and money.
The example of Jesus should be quite enough, all arguments
to the contrary should now come to an end, yet it does not. Some
it seems love to argue just for the sake of arguing.
What about Peter's statement in Acts that "silver and gold
have I none." How does this prove they had secular jobs and did
not live off those they served? If they had secular employment,
then Peter would have had some silver and gold in his pocket!
It is obvious the apostles DID HAVE MONEY from chapter
2:42-47 of Acts(and also chapter 4:32-37; 5:1-2). The early
disciples pooled their physical wealth and gave to each as
needed. Peter would have need, and so he would have received as
needed, for his needs as others also. His living expenses would
have been provided for. There is no record anywhere that Peter
had a secular job after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The
pooled wealth was for their needs so I doubt that Peter was
walking around with piles of silver or gold nuggets in his
pockets. What Peter said to the lame man was a "figure of speech"
as well as the truth of the matter. He was going to give the man
far more than anything physical silver or gold could do for him.
He was going to give him his legs in full health to walk and run
on! What a miracle in the name of Jesus. A miracle which led
Peter to preach another sermonette to the people about Christ.
Some want to argue about this "money" thing as opposed to
"food and clothes." Let me ask you: What is the difference if a
church buys houses or apartments for its full time ministers to
house them in, and pays all costs of upkeep, taxes, heating/air
condition, utilities etc. brings them boxes of food each week,
buys their clothing, gives them a car and pays their gas and
repairs, all in order for them to do a full time work in the
church, OR gives them money to have all these necessities of life
whereby they can be full time in God's work? WHAT IS THE
DIFFERENCE? It all boils down to "governments" in the church(1
Cor.12:28).
One local church may want to do it the first way mentioned
above. Another local church may decide to use the second method.
Each local autonomous church(and I do believe in local autonomy)
has the liberty to decide how they will provide the necessities
of life to their full time servers.
The last question I want to answer under this section of our
study is the question often asked today as to WHY the law of
tithing to the church of God is NOT mentioned in the NT. Why did
Paul not plainly teach and preach that Christians should now
tithe to the church of God?
The answer is found in Acts chapter 21 to 26. Paul NEVER
PREACHED AGAINST THE OLD COVENANT PER SE! None of the Jews could
find any fault with Paul, even when they had tied up and before
the courts of the land. Many IN the church were zealous for the
law! It was their liberty in Christ to so do. The Old Covenant
with the Temple PRIESTHOOD AND RITUALS was still in operation -
70 A.D. had not yet come!
Was the OC instituted by God? Sure it was! Was the laws of
the priesthood and tithing to THEM instituted by God? You bet it
was from God! 70 A.D. had not yet come. The Temple still stood,
the priesthood, rituals, and tithing to that system was STILL IN
VOGUE! People in Judah were still following those laws, and GET
THIS, MANY IN THE CHURCH WERE STILL ZEALOUS FOR THOSE LAWS(ACTS
21)!
It was within Christian liberty to keep them if you wanted
to! It was then within Christian liberty to tithe to the temple
priesthood IF YOU SO CHOSE!
That is WHY you cannot find Paul or other apostles
DOGMATICALLY preaching or teaching that the members of the church
HAD TO TITHE to the church only, for they KNEW such was not the
case!
Many scholars claim the book of HEBREWS was written shortly
before 70 AD. Paul(I believe the evidence shows Paul was the
author) knew what was going to happen in 70 AD(by inspiration and
revelation) to the Temple and Priesthood(coming to an end), and
so was able to write what he wrote in chapter 7 about tithing,
the official one priesthood that would be left, and the changes
God had made from Old to New Covenants. The changes that would
officially come to pass in 70 A.D. Paul was answering the
question about priesthood and tithing once the Old Covenant
priesthood was literally gone.
Up to 70 AD Christians were at liberty to tithe to the
Temple priesthood IF THEY WANTED for it was STILL FROM GOD! It
was still an ordinance of the Lord's that He had not yet brought
officially to an end. Paul, Peter, James, or any other apostle,
could not demand that all tithing was to go to the church, not
while the temple and its priesthood still stood. Hence they never
taught such a thing in their writings. But they did teach that
the ministers of the Lord had the authority to live off those
they served. Early in the NT church that is one of the main
reasons(what I've stated above) as to why people sold lands etc.
to meet the needs(as tithing could not be demanded to be given
to only the church) of all the members who continued to stay on
in Jerusalem, and who had no secular work there because they were
far from home and where their work was situated. Remember many
who were converted after hearing Peter's sermon had come to
Jerusalem to observe the day of Pentecost. They had come from all
parts of the Roman empire.
ATTITUDE FOR THE LAY MEMBER
What does the Lord require of the congregational member of
the Church of God?
"REMEMBER them which are the guides over you" (Heb.13:7 KJV
with margin reading).
A true servant of the Eternal God should be worth
remembering, he has been called to serve the members of the
Church and preach the truths of the word of the Lord to all who
will listen. In remembering him you remember the Lord.
Jesus said, "The laborer is worthy of his hire." The servant
of the Lord labors in the care and feeding of the flock of the
sheepfold - the children of the Lord.
Paul was inspired to write, "Let the elders that rule
well(fulfil their calling with extra care and effort) be counted
worthy of double HONOR..... for the scripture says, You shall
not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn...." (1 Tim.5:17-18).
God loves a cheerful giver! (2 Cor.9:7).
....................
First written in 1983.
Revised and edited in 1996.
To be continued
Church Government #4What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
APPENDIX
All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise
stated.
Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic
of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to
arguments not addressed in the body of this work.
JAMES 3:1
The argument is that ALL and EVERYONE in the body of Christ
should be teachers. That all can take turns in the church to
teach or be elders. With this argument comes the idea that
James is NOT contradicting this notion, but is saying that
people should not become "GREAT teachers" or "be not GREAT
BIG(DEAL) teachers." Teacher with proud swelled heads of vanity
and dictatorial authority.
But is this the truth of the matter. Was James meaning an
"attitude" of mind, or was he simply telling his readers that
many should NOT ASPIRE to want to be ELDERS/overseers(who must
teach - 1 Tim.3) in the church congregations?
The truth is found from the Greek.
This is one instance where the peculiarities of the Greek
language can cause confusion. "polus"(many) can mean "great big"
or "much" (but not "deal"). However, the word in James 3:1 is not
"polus"(singular) but "polloi"(plural).
As Zhodiates says:
".....(II) In the pl.masc. polloi......means many. With
nouns of multitude it means great, large." (i.e. a great large
multitude.)
In James 3:1 the plural "polloi" IS followed by a "noun of
multitude," namely "didaskaloi" (teachers). (i.e. be not a great
large multitude of teachers).
Here's how the NRSV puts it:
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and
sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with
greater strictness."
You may want to look up this verse in many other
translations. I have not found any that translate it as "great
big deal teachers" or conveying an attitude of mind.
If James was trying to convey a meaning of "great big deal"
teachers he would have used something along the lines of
"hyperlian" (as in 2 Cor.11:5 for "superlative") or, another word
with "hyper-" or other in it.
THE WORD - HIERARCHICAL
The question of the use of this word in regards Church
Government keeps being raised. There is I believe some confusion
in some minds as to HOW and as to WHAT is meant by this word in
the context of CG(church government). Some are saying GOD is
hierarchical - always was and always will be, and has always
governed as a hierarchy and will always so do. Some say God is
not under the NT(New Testament) governing in a hierarchical
manner, and never did even under the OT(Old Testament). Both
sides accuse the other of being theologically incorrect.
What is happening here is the misunderstanding of how each
side is using the word hierarchy and what context it is used in.
The GODHEAD(God) is indeed hierarchical. It is written, "God
is the head of Christ." Jesus Himself said, "the Father is
greater than I." And, "the one sent is not greater than he who
sent him."
So God has always ruled as a hierarchy - from the TOP DOWN,
and always will so rule. God the Father is supreme in authority,
then comes Christ Jesus, second in authority. Then it is written,
"Christ is head of the Church." And as Jesus said it is the
Father who will determine who sits on the right and left hand of
Christ, in the Kingdom.
The question then is, WHERE does the hierarchy go, if it
goes anywhere, in relationship to the physical members of the NT
church in this age?
And this is where all the debate about Church Government
really lies. The debate is not really over the hierarchy of God
per se, but: Is the NT church to be hierarchical in human
structure of persons? Or, trying to make this as clear as I can
to the reader, the question is: Does the Bible, especially the
NT, teach that the church Jesus built is to be STRUCTURED and
GOVERNED like the human hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church
- one single flesh and blood human who has all and final
authority over all other elders and ministers and lay persons on
matters of doctrine, ethics, morality, and administration?
This is the argument and question, not whether God rules
hierarchically, but whether the physical ministers and lay
persons within the NT CHURCH are to organize themselves in
structure as have the people and ministers of the Roman Catholic
church, and/or, is the NT church run on a democratic form of the
congregational persons voting into office elders and deacons and
doctrines etc.
Has God decreed for the NT church that it is to have ONE
supreme physical man as head, with all final authority over all
things that pertain to the running of the church?
This is the question that concerns many today in the Church
of God. This study has addressed THAT question, and I believe
given the truth of the matter as found in the plain teachings and
examples of the NT.
ANCIENT ISRAEL - DID THEY HAVE A HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM?
Among all the debating over this topic, there has now risen
another question: Did God institute a human hierarchical system
in ancient Israel?
Some say it is clear God did do so. Others say He never did.
Those on the side of "no He never did'' say that Exodus 18
was only of human institution - namely Jethro and Moses without
God in the picture. They claim that God gave His Spirit to other
men(i.e. Num.11) so Moses was NOT the "chief" among the physical
Israelites. They say that the supreme "one man rule" of the Kings
of Israel was of human request and not the desire of God.
I have great difficulty accepting their arguments and
reasoning not the least is just a simple reading of the OT. It
seems clear to me that God DID, most of the time RULE or tried to
rule(if the people would respond) ancient Israel through the
leadership, guidance, and inspiration of a DOMINANT authoritarian
leader that had final authority in matters of God and the ways of
God.
Let's go back to Exodus 18. Was this JUST of men? Or was it
also of God? Was this ONLY an idea of Jethro? Or had God given it
to Jethro(at least backed him in it) and did He inspire Moses to
adopt Jethro's advice?
Notice what is missed by many, it is found in verse 23. "If
you do this thing, AND GOD SO COMMANDS YOU, then you will be able
to endure...."
Jethro did not want Moses adopting his idea and suggestion
without consulting God about it!
Obviously Moses did consult God and God did approve because
we then read "So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and
did all that he had said"(v.24). The account in Deut.1 would also
bear this out.
This pyramid structure of government - Moses as "top chief"
- the supreme in authority over other lesser rulers of people,
who were over still lesser rulers - this Roman Catholic structure
of OT church government - WAS FROM GOD, it was ORDAINED of Him,
sanctioned and set in order of Him. Just because the empire of
Babylon, or Egypt had an established religious "priesthood" does
not mean God could not establish His own priesthood for Israel if
He so chose. God's probably came first, and other nations copied,
for Satan is the great counter copier of the truth, but he
perverts it.
God giving His Spirit and rulership ability to others
besides Moses is only wise and just. But that does not take away
the plain truth that Moses was HEAD and SUPREME human authority
over all other humans in the organized state/church of Israel. It
was Moses who commanded them at that time to do the things they
needed to do(Deut.1:18). He still maintained the number one
leadership role under God. All the hard matter they were to bring
to him for settlement.
I have no trouble with that fact, because it is clear from
reading the OT that God, organizationally, did operate
DIFFERENTLY with different people at different times.
After Moses, the supreme human authority over Israel was
passed to Joshua. After Joshua there were a number of individual
leaders God used from time to time to guide and judge Israel. The
Lord even used a woman, one single person, to judge Israel -
Deborah. She lived in mount Ephraim and "the children of Israel
came to her for judgment"(Judges 4:4,5).
Samuel was the last of the judges to directly under God,
lead and rule and guide the nation and church of Israel.
Again, I just can not see any other way but to accept the
fact that from reading the story of Samuel, he was chosen by God
to be the ONE human authority over all other humans(including the
priesthood) in the state/church of Israel. He was directly
inspired and talked with God as did Moses.
Sure it was the people of Israel who humanly wanted a KING
to reign and rule them, and not God's desire, but the CHURCH
government side of the state/church of Israel still had its
Levites, priesthood, and HIGH priest who was "chief" over the
other priests.
Yes, there were others who had the "spirit of the Lord" -
who worked in the state religion of God, did the Lord's work and
served the people, yet there still was a high, top of the line,
priest.
The example of ELIJAH and ELISHA is a classic. There was a
school of prophets, many were "with" Elijah, but to me it is
evident from just reading the story, Elijah was TOP GUN, with top
authority under God in doing the work of God. When the Lord
called it a day for Elijah, Elisha was chosen to take over number
ONE position in the work of God.
So, by and large, under the OC as God dealt with Israel and
Judah, especially in religious matters, there was most of the
time, a human structure of rule that was Roman Catholic in
nature(as shocking as that seems to some today). And this worked
for God towards His people for that time BECAUSE 1) He often
directly, verbally, and in some cases VISIBLY, inspired and
talked to the one head man over His work, i.e. Moses, Samuel,
Elijah. 2) God had judges that were filled with His
Spirit(Num.11). 3) God instituted the URIM and THUMMIM for often
judgments and decisions(see a Bible Dictionary).
I have no difficulty in accepting that God did work under
the OC with Israel on a human pyramid structure of rulership. I
believe that is QUITE EVIDENT from a reading of the OT.
BUT the question is: IS GOD WORKING ON A HUMAN PYRAMID -
ONE AUTHORITARIAN, ALL POWER, MAN - WITHIN HIS NT CHURCH?
The body of this study has addressed that question and
answered from the pages of the NT scriptures.
JESUS - THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER?
In showing that the NT church of God was never to be
organized with any ONE single human being, having all power and
all authority over all ministers and members of the church,
further confusion in some minds has been thrown up by those who
find it difficult to accept the truth that God does CHANGE the
way He does things from time to time.
The confusion arises from people "shouting out" the verse in
Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ, the SAME yesterday, today, and
forever."
I will now spend some time and space to answer this.
Recently within the church of God, this verse has been one
of the most MISUSED and MISUNDERSTOOD verses of the NT.
In the context of Church Government, those who see that God
used a human pyramid with Israel under the OC, cling to Heb.13:8
and say God must then be using a human pyramid structure of
government for His NT church under the NC age. So they
must try to fit the NT scriptures into their idea and really do
some magic tricks with some pretty plain verses, that would blast
their notions out of the water.
Then on the other hand those who see the truth that the NT
scriptures teach no such doctrine for God's church as a Roman
Catholic structure of ministerial pyramid authority and "rank"
system, they, based upon Heb.13:8, must try to prove that God
NEVER EVER had a human pyramid system in ancient Israel under the
OC age.
Both sides are missing the bulls eye and causing confusion
in people's minds. They are running with only one leg on TWO
counts:
1) They do not see or have forgotten, that God DOES CHANGE
things at times in His plan, as His plan unfolds from age to age.
He does make adjustments and amendments from time to time as
needed and as He sees necessary, according to His will.
2) They do not see what the MAIN TRUTH and PURPOSE is for
Hebrews 13:8
God does CHANGE and is not the same in certain things. Most
of you know it, so don't jump too hastily to say I'm
contradicting Heb.13:8.
When did God institute circumcision? Was it with Enoch? Or
was it with Shem? Was it with Noah? NO! It was with ABRAHAM and
his seed! Before Abraham it was NOT THERE as a covenant for
God's people! With Abraham and Moses it was! No male could
become a full OC Israelite unless they were circumcised in the
flesh! No male could partake of the Passover unless circumcised!
So important had physical circumcision become to Israel
under the OC that some were teaching within the NT church that it
was still necessary to "be saved." The issue had to be brought to
a head in the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15.
The NT shows plainly that physical circumcision is NOW under
the NC of no religious concern (Rom.2:28,29; 1 Cor.7:19; Acts 15;
Gal.6:15).
God has CHANGED circumcision(physical) from a MUST under the
OC to a NOTHING under the NC.
Whatever way you slice it, there has been a change in
physical circumcision from the OC age to the NC age, and all of
it was instituted and de-instituted BY God!
God has not always been the "same" in some respects.
The law of TITHES was a certain way to a certain TRIBE under
the OC. That was decreed and instituted by God. Now the NC makes
it very clear that there is a CHANGE, and that change is decreed
and instituted by God. See Hebrews the seventh chapter. Note the
very word 'change' is used in verse 12.
There was a certain type of priesthood involving a certain
tribe(Levi) under the OC. Now under the NC there is a NEW
high-priest from another tribe, with a new priesthood of His
own(see again Heb.7 and note verse 12).
All this was decreed and instituted by God - a CHANGE for
Him, not the same as before!
Remember the God of the OC was the one who became the Christ
of the NC(you may want to request the article that proves that
truth).
Under the OC physical animal sacrifices were instituted by
Christ - God. They were a MUST for all Israelites under the OC.
Now under the NC there is a CHANGE - animal sacrificing is NOT
DESIRED or required by God (see Heb. 10:1-18). There is NO
Levitical priesthood, and NO temple. Animal sacrifices CAN NOT be
offered to God, even if those two physical requirements were in
place the NC shows it is NOT required in this age.
God has CHANGED the way He does things, He is not always the
same in all operations of His plan.
Under the OC vows were permitted and wow to him who did not
follow through with them. Under the NC there are to be no vows or
swearing but a "no" or a "yes" for the Christian. There has been
a change - Jesus is not doing things exactly the "same" today as
before.
Jesus said to the Pharisees that "divorce for any reason"
was permitted and allowed under Moses - the OC. But "from the
beginning it was not so." Jesus under the NC does not allow
divorce for every reason, the law is changed. Jesus is not
governing the NC Israel as He did OC Israel - things are not the
same with Him in certain respects.
The OC itself is CHANGED. Who instituted the OC? Why Christ
did, the God of the OT. The OC is changed to the NC, which is
based upon BETTER promises and is a BETTER covenant (see Heb.8).
The OC never automatically gave the "Spirit of God" or
"eternal life" to those under it. The NC gives BOTH! That is a
CHANGE, that is not the same, that is a change in the way God -
Christ, has acted and done things differently in different ages.
Under the OC God did not give them the HEART to obey
(Deut.5:29; 29:1-4) - under the NC all that has changed (see
Heb.8 again). The promise from God is not the same!
Now, do you see the truth of Heb.13:8? The words "the same"
must be understood in the light of the TOTALITY of the word of
God as to HOW Paul was using them. and the CONTEXT Paul was using
them in will also give us the correct understanding of what
is the "same" about Christ in the past, present, and future.
Let's look at the context of Hebrews 13.
Verse 7, Paul tells his readers to remember (look to,
esteem, take note of) those who rule(lead - mrg. reading) them.
He tells them to remember those ministers who have led them and
spoken the word of God to them. He tells them, "whose FAITH
FOLLOW."
Did he mean by those words - doctrine, certain technical
ideas of theology? I think not, for sometimes even God's true
ministers have incorrect doctrines at times(remember how we
observed Pentecost on a Sunday for 40 years or more before
finding we were wrong).
The context again shows us what Paul meant by the words
"whose faith follow." The next words and sentence make it clear,
"considering the outcome of their CONDUCT." They were to consider
their CHARACTER OF PRACTICAL DAY TO DAY LIVING.
Paul was not first of all concerned with small points of
doctrine, of course he knew that God's leaders they were to
remember, would have the correct BASIC doctrines of God right, or
he would have warned them about false leaders coming as wolves in
sheeps clothing. That was not his concern in verses 7 and 8. His
concern was they look to and follow the faithful servants of God
in their CONDUCT of character and living, which matured or
evidenced (outcome) in "Jesus Christ - the same yesterday, today,
and forever."
The true leaders of God(whatever they may have had in small
errors of doctrine) speaking the true word of God, were trying to
set the right example of faithful living in holy character of
daily conduct AS JESUS CHRIST HAS ALWAYS DONE IN THE PAST, IN
THE PRESENT, AND WILL IN THE FUTURE FOREVER.
This is what Paul wanted them to see and follow in those
leaders - the HOLY RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER OF CONDUCT AND PURITY OF
LOVE, JUSTICE, PEACE, MERCY(all the fruits of the Spirit) that
was the sum total of Jesus Christ from past eternity to future
eternity.
He started to talk about DOCTRINE in verse 9!
He was not talking about theological issues as the changing
from the OC to the NC and what was not the same with them, or
other "not the same" as before doctrines, in verses 7 and 8.
Verses 7,8 are concerned with HOLY RIGHTEOUS CHARACTER in
daily living not about doctrinal changes God may have made from
one age to another age (i.e. circumcision, baptism, covenants,
tithing, priesthood, vows etc.).
When Jesus was dealing with Adam and Eve, when He was
dealing with Enoch, when He was dealing with Noah and others
under THAT age, when the doctrine of circumcision, Levite
priesthood, rigorous animal sacrificial system and other OC laws
of Israel were NOT in effect, He - Jesus - was HOLY and PURE and
RIGHTEOUS and JUST in all His CONDUCT towards those He was
governing.
When Christ was dealing with Moses, the people of Israel and
all under the OC(with instituted laws of physical circumcision,
tithing to Levi, a priesthood, sacrificial system, vows, divorce,
and the like, that would change later), He was HOLY and PURE
and RIGHTEOUS and JUST in character towards those He was ruling
in THAT age.
When Jesus deals with those He is leading today under the NC
with its changes from the OC, He is still HOLY, JUST, PURE, and
RIGHTEOUS in CONDUCT and MIND as He has always been and will
always be for eternity.
Also with all this the PLAN and PURPOSE of God in creating
mankind has always been the same, yesterday, today, and forever.
That spiritual character of purpose will never change, it will
always be the same, as before the foundations of the earth were
laid when that plan and purpose was formulated.
When Christ deals with, leads and guides, all the physical
people during the 1,000 year reign(millennium) of the Kingdom of
God on earth, with WHATEVER changes the earth and NC will have
(the prophets say physical animal sacrifices will again be
offered in a temple in Jerusalem by a priesthood) during that
age, He will still be the SAME in Holy Righteous conduct.
On into the WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT age, the NEW heavens and
earth age, and out into eternity. Whatever God decides to do,
whatever His plans, whatever CHANGES, whatever will not be the
same, along the way, one thing will always remain the SAME - the
Holy Righteous conduct of Jesus Christ (and God the Father) will
FOREVER remain unchanged.
Under all situations, under any covenant agreement, under
all circumstances, with all people, God will be always JUST,
LOVE, MERCY, HOLY, PURE, RIGHTEOUS and whatever other word can
describe PERFECT SINLESS perfection of CONDUCT.
The Holy character and divine plan and purpose of God and
Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever.
Ah, yes, He may change some doctrinal things from time to
time as He wills(after all He is God, not us humans, and can do
what He wishes, when He wishes, in the manner He wishes and with
whom He wishes - we are the clay He is the potter) but His holy
sinless conduct has and will always remain THE SAME!
Now that is the truth of the matter concerning Hebrews 13:8
as it is also with Malachi 3:6.
Truly as Jesus said "the scriptures can not be broken."
There is no contradiction in the word of the Lord, and so the
truth about NC church government does not contradict the truth
about OC church government, and the sum total of both does not
contradict Hebrews 13:8.
LOGIC, AND WHO TODAY COULD BE HEAD OF THE PHYSICAL CHURCH?
Stop and think - let's use some logic. If God has decreed
that His NC church for this age was to be humanly pyramid in
structure, then with all the various BRANCHES of the Church of
God that have "come out" of the one organization called the
"Worldwide Church of God," WHICH human man is chief of the
others, the one with all authority that the other ministers must
say "yes sir" to?
Is it Ted Armstrong or Ron Dart who is "directly under
Christ"? Is it David Hume from the UCG who is next in authority
under Christ? How about Rod Meredith from the GCG, maybe it is he
who is top dog? Then possibly it is none of the above, but
ministers like Fred Coulter of the CBCG, or John Ritenbaugh of
the COG, or John Pinkston of the CGSD? Maybe it is Gerald Flurry
of PCG.
Her's another problem, if it is one of these men, now that
the WCG has split into many organizations, how can this TOP man
exercise authority over the others in any practical way?
Further, if you believe Herbert Armstrong was God's TOP man
in God's NT pyramid structure of human ministers, believing God
has always had a human pyramid hierarchical structure in His NT
church(as the RC church teaches), THEN TELL ME, if you can, WHO
WAS TOP GUN in authority and power BEFORE HWA took over, and
further more, tell me WHEN and WHY did HWA take over from the one
before him?
And further still, WHO was the chief minister before that,
and before that, and so on down the historic line?
The Roman Catholic church can tell you as they see it, so
what about the Church of God and those that uphold the same type
of idea as the RC's.
Let's face it, the whole idea of human hierarchical
authority in the context of the NC Church of God is LAUGHABLE
when you recognize the true history of the true Church has been
SPLITS upon SPLITS.
The truth is HWA became leader of ONE part of the true
Church of God, there were other parts teaching the same basic
doctrines in other parts of the world, and yes keeping the
festivals of Lev.23. Such a branch was found by WCG ministers in
South America back in the 1960's.
That has been the norm for God's people since the days of
the last apostle of the first century A.D. - John.
There has never really been UNITY among God's people since
the end of the first century. And even during the apostle Paul's
time a pretty strong case can be built from NT verses that God's
people had trouble with unity even during the life time of
Christ's original apostles(i.e. 1 Cor.l-3).
The plain truth is, if the last 2,000 years says anything
about the true Church of God and unity, it will NOT BE A
REALIZATION until Jesus Christ returns to establish God's Kingdom
on earth.
Those who cling to the teaching that God is still using the
same form of church government in the NT age as He used with
Israel in the OT age, must somehow try to find verses in the NT
that would seem to support their hypothesis.
The RC church has for centuries claimed that the apostle
PETER was "chief" and authoritarian head of all other elders and
apostles mentioned in the NT.
The body of this study has examined the scriptures they use
to expound the "supremacy of Peter" teaching and has found such
ideas to be totally without any truth in fact.
Now I must answer arguments that have been put forth by some
in one branch of the Church of God, that PAUL had dictatorial
authority over a church and/or churches as well as certain
ministers.
1 CORINTHIANS 5:1-3 is often quoted to give credence to a
"Supremacy of Paul" idea.
One writer states: "Although he certainly must have had much
information and probably also counsel from other leaders of the
Church, the apostle Paul had authority to make the decision to
disfellowship this sinner. Obviously, he was not seeking
permission from any committee or 'church board' to carry out this
action" (What Is the Biblical Form of Church Government?
GCN-Global Church News, Vol.3, No.5, p.5).
Please turn to 1 Cor.5 and read verses 1-12. Can you find
anywhere in these verses where Paul said anything like: "As I
have authority over you all and your elders, I command you to
disfellowship this sinner." Or, "I am in authority and you MUST
DO as I say, so cast this sinner out from among your fellowship."
Or, "I have sole authority to judge and declare what the rest of
you shall do with this sinner."
No such dictatorial authority can be found in this passage!
If it was a common fact that Paul had some sort of '"supreme
- you must do as I say because I have authority over you and your
ministers" rank, and the Corinthians KNEW IT, then surely
somewhere in the two letters he wrote to them, he would have had
point to tell them. Just look at all the things he had to CORRECT
and INSTRUCT them on!
As I read those letters it comes across to me VERY CLEARLY,
that the Corinthian church, its members and elders, were NOT
standing in AWE of the apostle Paul as some "chief" authority
that they had to bow down before and lick the dust off his feet.
Paul had to correct them on following MEN and not the ONE
and only HEAD of the church - Christ (chap.l-3). Paul had planted
- raised up the church at Corinth, but it was Apollos who
WATERED, yet it was God who gave the increase(chap.2:5,6). Some
were following neither of these two men but were looking to PETER
as authority(chap.l:l2).
Paul tells them that all of God's ministers are FELLOW
WORKERS - one is NOT ABOVE the others - God is in charge, not
men. They were to consider THEM (Peter, Apollos, Paul) as
SERVANTS of Christ, none were to be puffed up against another
(chap.3 to 4:7).
Paul tells them they were acting as if they had no need of
ANY minister to guide them(chap.4:8-13).
Here was Paul's opportunity to set them in line and tell
them it was HE - Paul, that had personal dictatorial authority
over them, but he did no such thing.
He goes on to use words not of dictatorial power but one who
was spiritually more MATURE than they, to WARN and INSTRUCT them
as to HOW they SHOULD be living and acting in the Spirit.
"I do not write these things to shame you, but as my BELOVED
CHILDREN I warn you. For though you might have ten thousand
instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in
Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Therefore I
URGE you, IMITATE me. For this reason I have sent Timothy who
will REMIND you of MY WAYS in Christ, as I TEACH everywhere and
in every church" (v.14-17).
Do you see how Paul conducted himself towards people? Not as
some "big cheese" authoritative "I am the boss around here" head
apostle with final power over all others. Not as someone saying
"I will make the decision and you all will obey" but he
presented himself as a servant of Christ, a fellow worker with
other elders of Christ, a spiritual mature father of others he
had brought to Christ through the gospel, someone who had to warn
yes, but who also URGED, PLEADED with and ENCOURAGED others
to IMITATE himself as he walked and imitated Christ (chap.11:1).
Yes, and in all of that there could be times when POWERFUL
correction may have to be used(see Paul's instruction in 2
Tim.4:1-4) as he explained to them in verses 18-21.
Now chapter 5. It had been reported to Paul that OPEN incest
was being practiced and the church was ignoring the situation -
allowing it. Paul had to CORRECT them, show them their ERROR, so
he did. He had to INSTRUCT them the WAY of Christ in regards
to HOW a church should act towards a person doing such blatant
sins and not repenting of it, while still being a member of the
church and everyone knowing what was being practiced by this
individual.
Paul told them he personally had to judge the case, just as
if he was there within the congregation, as each of them must do.
And his judgment was that such things CAN NOT be allowed to be
practiced within the church, as if no sin was being done, or as
if grace was to be extending towards the sinner by allowing him
to remain with them while practicing such a sin.
Notice clearly what Paul said: "In the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, when YOU ARE GATHERED TOGETHER, along with my
spirit, with the power of out Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a
one to Satan"(v.4,5).
Read it again, get it CLEAR! The decision to disfellowship
the sinner out of the church into the unconverted world of Satan
was to be a COLLECTIVE church matter! "....when YOU ARE GATHERED
TOGETHER ALONG WITH my spirit..." Paul wanted them ALL to come to
the SAME judgment as he, a mature spiritual father to them had
come to. The judgment decision was to be passed by THEM
collectively, when they gathered together, and Paul would be
among them in spirit.
If Paul ONLY had authority to make the decision to
disfellowship this sinner, no such language would have been
needed from Paul to them, no GATHERING TOGETHER would have been
needed on their part. Paul would have merely told them he knew
what was going on, he had made a decision, he had authority over
them all including their elders, and they were to tell the sinner
that Paul had disfellowshipped him and that was all there was to
it.
Paul would have said to them that they were to send him this
sinners address and he would write to him telling him that he was
disfellowshipped on the authority of Paul himself. Or he could
have told them that one of their elders was to tell this man that
Paul had made a decision to disfellowship him, and that it would
be announced from the pulpit to the whole congregation on the
Sabbath.
He could have told them to tell the sinner "Just tell him
I've judged and he is disfellowshipped."
No such words are here recorded, no such words from Paul as:
"By the sole authority invested in me over you all, I now
disfellowship this sinner. You are commanded to do as I say."
No such words can be found from the mouth of Paul because HE
FOLLOWED CHRIST! And Christ had given the 1, 2, 3, of
disfellowshipping. The local church had FINAL judgement and
authority NOT ANY ONE SINGLE MAN(Mat.18).
That is why Paul said to the church at Corinth "when YOU are
GATHERED together along with my spirit."
Paul went on to say, "with the POWER of our LORD JESUS
CHRIST" not with his(Paul's) power or authority, as some
"highest" court judge, but with CHRIST'S authority. And Christ
had already given His authority on such sinful matters in the
church and how to handle them (Mat.l8).
Paul had previously INSTRUCTED them about the way of Christ
in regards un-repented open sins within the church and how THEY
were to JUDGE such matters inside the church (v.9-13). But in
this matter of a member practicing incest they were NOT judging
when they SHOULD HAVE BEEN! And Paul had to correct and instruct
and URGE them to do the right thing in this situation.
There is a VAST difference between CORRECTING, INSTRUCTING,
URGING, and PLEADING with someone to act upon the way of Christ,
and dictatorially stating you and you alone apart from other
humans or body of humans, have full authority to disfellowship
someone.
Of course this kind of individual power is very prevalent in
"cultish" organizations.
Paul did not come close to acting with any such demagogue
authority.
Notice how he corrects and instructs them about judging, and
courts of law in chapter 6.
Brother was taking brother to the courts of this world for
justice and trouble solving between themselves. Did Paul think
that the church at Corinth did NOT have the ABILITY and the
spiritually mature elders among them to JUDGE? No way! This was a
church full of "spiritual gifts" and prophets (chap.12 through
14). They had the "wise" among them, they had those who could
judge, but they were not using those gifts, and those men, as
they should have, so he had to "tongue in cheek" use SHAME to get
them to see their errors (chap.6:2-6).
He wanted THEM to judge the matters pertaining to the
church. He wanted them to judge the matters between brothers, not
the courts of the unconverted world. He wanted them to judge
matters of serious sins being practiced openly within the church.
He did not say anything about them just handling the minor
problems, little sins, while he, as chief authority would
personally judge the "hard" cases and serious sins, and have sole
authority to disfellowship.
Paul wanted them with their elders and the spiritual gifts
they had to JUDGE, and to govern their congregation in the way of
Christ. Paul was CORRECTING yes, Paul was INSTRUCTING yes, Paul
was WARNING yes, Paul was URGING and PLEADING, yes. He was
ENCOURAGING, yes, but it was they - as a collective body and unit
- elders, deacons, and saints, who were to judge and act and walk
the way of Christ Jesus in all things.
The church at Corinth was willing to listen to Paul, they
were willing to be corrected and taught. They did disfellowship
the sinner for his practice of incest.
When he writes his next letter to them he has heard that the
sinner is truly repentant, but the church is holding back its
forgiveness and comfort towards him. He then must INSTRUCT and
URGE them to now do what Christ would do.
See the beauty of this love expressed to the church and
repentant sinner in 2 Cor.2:1-11.
Please read it in the AMPLIFIED BIBLE TRANSLATION.
The sinner was censured for his sin not by Paul per se, but
"by the MAJORITY" (v.6). He tells them in verse 7 to FORGIVE, to
COMFORT, to encourage the repentant man lest he despair. Notice
verse 8 in the Amplified Bible. "I therefore BEG you to
reinstate him in your affection and assure him by your love for
him." The NKJV says, "Therefore I URGE you..." The same language
as in his first letter.
There is no "I command you by my authority" language.
Nothing here about Paul telling them he will allow him back into
fellowship so they must obey. Nothing about Paul writing to the
man and telling him that on his authority only he could come
back.
No, the ultimate DOING was in their hands. Paul could GUIDE,
TEACH, INSTRUCT, CORRECT. He could URGE and BEG them to follow
the way of Christ, to follow him as he followed Christ. He could
PLEAD with them to LISTEN to him, but it was finally, when all
was said and done, UP TO THEM TO DO THE WAY OF CHRIST!
You will note in this also - in this re-instating of the now
repentant sinner - it was THEY who had to do it! Paul did not say
that he would do it. Paul FORGAVE because the sinner was
repentant. They forgave - Paul forgave.
The church at Corinth was not writing to Paul to acquire his
authority for getting this man reinstated. Paul had been told the
sinner had repented and he was INSTRUCTING the church what the
way of Christ would now be. He was URGING - BEGGING them to show
love, mercy, forgiveness, comfort and encouragement to this
man, and to allow him back into fellowship.
The chances are very likely that this man went through all
this - the 1, 2, 3, steps of Mat.18, the final judgment and
decision by the majority to disfellowship, the period of
repentance, the caring, encouragement, forgiveness, and
reinstating to full fellowship again, WITHOUT EVER HEARING THE
NAME OF PAUL!!
I have spent time on this issue because the plain truth of
the subject of excommunication from the church has been greatly
MISUNDERSTOOD, PERVERTED, and ABUSED by a number of denominations
of Christianity over the years, including sadly to say, some
branches of the Church of God.
It seems few really understand what the word of God
correctly teaches on this subject. This is one time when the
voting majority of the church must make the decision to
disfellowship, and not any single elder or group of elders.
I have written in great depth and detail the truth about
this subject in an article called "Disfellowshipping - What the
Bible Really Teaches."
I have to my pleasant surprise also discovered over the
years that some fundamental Protestant churches as well as the
Seventh Day Adventist church not only understand but practice the
truth of this doctrine in their structure of church governing.
When done correctly as Jesus taught and all the NT enjoins, it is
most loving, merciful, and rewarding for the whole church. It
brings the sinner, the elders, the deacons, and the saints
together in a humility that transcends human ideas. It brings the
church together as a FAMILY in a way that only trials, tests,
pain, sorrow, crying, humility, forgiveness, mercy, and love can
do.
Not all the truths of the Lord are easy to accept or
enjoyable to enact (from the human emotional view) but the end
result is the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them who are
exercised thereby. As Jesus said, " You shall know the truth and
the truth shall make you free."
To be continued
Church Government #5What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed
APPENDIX
Continued
All scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise
stated.
Because of certain things written and spoken on this topic
of late, it is needful I write more and give my answers to
arguments not addressed in the body of this work.
HIERARCHY IN THE MILLENNIUM
Some may argue that God's government in the age to come (the
millennium) will be hierarchical(Christ over everyone, David over
Israel, the 12 apostles under David, each ruling a tribe of
Israel - Ezek.37; Jer.30; Mat.l9), so the NT church and its
physical ministry should follow that example.
This idea is faulty and weak with a number of flaws.
1) It fails to see that the persons mentioned (Christ, David, the
12 apostles) in the context of the millennium, are ALL in the God
Family - the very God-head, at that time. And as we have before
proved, the Godhead has always been hierarchical in government.
In this age of the church we are dealing with physical flesh and
blood people, whether elders or deacons or saints, they are not
perfect, holy, sinless spirit beings.
2) The argument fails to ask the question: What instructions has
the Lord given in the NT scriptures as to HOW the NT church is to
be governed, regardless as to how God did things BEFORE, or as to
how He may do things in the FUTURE, in the age to come?
As we have proved, the Lord does do things differently as He
chooses from time to time, or age to age.
3) Leading from above, it fails to see that God CHANGES His
dealings and approach to some things at times, as He works out
His UN-changing purpose and plan. His holy righteous character
and purpose never changes, it remains the same, but His
administrative dealings with people may, if He so desires. As we
have stated before in the millennium a physical temple, with a
physical priesthood, with physical animal sacrifices, will again
be part of God's administration and economy as He deals with
physical people during that age. Such is NOT part of His
administration today under the present age.
THE CHOOSING OF ELDERS AND GOVERNING THE CHURCH
We have covered this somewhat in the body of this study, but
a little more space is need here also.
One writer(GCN - Sept/Oct 95, p.5,6) can see (from such
passages as Luke 6:12-13; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus 1:5-9;
Eph.4:11-13; and let me add Acts 1; 13:1-3; 14:19-23) that the
clear example ALL through the word of God, is that called and
chosen Elders of the church and work of the Lord, are chosen in
TWO ways:
1) By God Himself - i.e. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel,
John the Baptist, Paul.
2) By other Elders - Acts 14:19-23; 1 Tim.3:1-13; 5:22; Titus
1:5-9 etc.
There is NO instruction nor ANY example in the NT to show
that any "church boards" or "church committees" of saints, EVER
chose or voted men into the office of ordained/appointed elder.
Never, in the NT can you find any group of saints/members of
a church LAYING HANDS on a man to appoint him to the eldership
ministry.
There is no instruction or example in the NT where LAY
persons(as a whole or as a board/committee) gave orders or told
the elders of a church HOW to RUN and GOVERN/GUIDE the church.
The clear teaching of the NT is that the Elders guide and govern
the church, as I have before proved in the body of this work(even
more specific proof is presented in part two and three of this
book).
Yet, the elders ruling the Church of God is not as little
vain dictators in some military army. This I have also proved
before, and will so show again later.
Does the lay person have ANY responsibility then? Yes
indeed! Very much so. They are not to be so "broad minded" that
their brains fall out! They are not to leave their minds at the
door when entering the church.
The examples and instructions for all of God's children are
MANY, i.e. Mat.24:4,5; Acts 20:17-30; 17:10-12; 2 Tim.2:15;
3:15-17; Titus 1:9,10; 3:9-11; 2 Pet.2; 1 John 2:18-29; 4:1-6; 2
John 4-11; 3 John 9-11; Jude.
As before shown ALL in the church have a duty to follow
Mat.18 in relation to problems within the membership of the
church, regardless of office and function. Then if a serious
problem arises with a minister, two or three or more can take
their case to other ministers for justice (1 Tim.5:19-21).
The saints member must always remember Acts 20; 2 Pet.2.
Some Elders MAY go off into apostasy and heresy. After all the
above actions are taken, the congregational
member must reject those elders who will not repent, and leave to
find ministers who are faithful to God's word.
PAUL IN AUTHORITY OVER TITUS?
Now I must answer in depth the argument put forth that Paul
had some "authority" and as one stated it "especially in
administrative matters" OVER Titus.
Some use a Bible translation that renders Titus 1:5 this
way: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in
order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every
city AS I COMMANDED YOU...."
Now to the English reader the words "I commanded you" or "as I
command you" will trigger a certain mind set - DICTATORIAL
AUTHORITY power, a "thou shalt" as if God was speaking.
It is interesting to look up this word in STRONG'S
concordance. It is number 1299 from 1223 and 5021 "to arrange
thoroughly, i.e.(spec)INSTITUTE, PRESCRIBE, etc.:- appoint,
command, give(set in) order, ordain."
If we have Paul as saying to Titus: "you should set in
order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every
city as I thoroughly arranged with you...." our English
mind takes a different view, that Paul was not acting as some
overbearing dictator funnelling out commands to those beneath his
superior rank. It is more conciliatory, kind, and affectionate
towards Titus.
Yes, there is a sense of spiritual INSTRUCTION and
leadership with Paul over Titus in these words and letter. So
also as Paul wrote to Timothy and instructed him on how to govern
the church.
Does this contradict what I have written and expounded in
the body of this work? No! Not at all. The very words and life of
Paul PROVE he taught no such doctrine as a "ministerial authority
rank" within the NT Church of God.
Turn to the book of Philippians. The letter is from both
Paul and Timothy and it is to ALL three levels of the ministry -
SAINTS, DEACONS, BISHOPS(elders) - verse 1. Please keep that
clearly in mind.
Chapter 2 verses 3,4 are POWERFUL in relation to this
subject of Church Government. "Let NOTHING be done through
selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind LET EACH
ESTEEM OTHERS BETTER THAN HIMSELF. Let each of you look out not
only for his own interests, but also for the INTERESTS OF
OTHERS."
Paul instructs - under INSPIRATION - that everyone in the
body of Christ, all in the church at Philippi (elders, deacons,
saints) - have HUMILITY to look upon others better than
themselves.
WOW!! What teaching from Paul.
How then do you think he treated Timothy and Titus? What
attitude of mind do you think he had towards them or anyone in
the Church of God? What was Paul's spiritual relationship with
Timothy and Titus? How did HE HIMSELF explain it? As a
hierarchical rank relationship? As a, "I'm over you in authority
and don't you forget it" attitude?
He himself tells us about his relationship with these
younger ministers.
"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you
shortly........you know his proven character, that AS A SON WITH
HIS FATHER he SERVED WITH me in the gospel" (verses 19,22).
Notice, Timothy served WITH Paul, not under Paul, and that
in Paul's own words. He followed his own inspired writings of
verses 3,4.
It was a spiritual father/son relationship that Paul had
with Timothy and Titus. A loving, warm, honorable, and mutually
respectful relationship.
There is not one word from Paul to Timothy or Titus about
any RANK authority he held over them. nothing about him reminding
them of his superior position in the ministerial "pecking order"
of church hierarchy. Nothing even about church administrational
authority so they had better obey.
There is plenty of INSTRUCTIONAL TEACHING, WISE ADVICE,
SOUND INSIGHTS, HELPFUL POINTS, REMINDER OF THINGS,
ENCOURAGEMENT, REQUESTS, and all done in a spiritual father/son
relationship.
Here were two younger men in age and length of service in
the ministry, and here was Paul older in both areas, who had
spent time helping, guiding, teaching Timothy and Titus the "ins
and outs" of being an effective Elder. They had worked WITH -
along side - Paul in the work of the gospel. There had grown a
mutually loving BOND between them, as a father to son, and son to
father. No "authority" statement was needed on the part of
anyone.
Here we find a perfect example of Peter's inspired words of
his first letter chapter five, verses one to six. The younger
elders were to submit and respect the older elders, and ALL were
to submit/respect each other in clothes of humility.
Paul and Peter spoke the same language, the same truths, the
same doctrines, and they followed and obeyed what God inspired
them to write, as I have before shown.
Paul's humility is profoundly evidenced - 1 Cor.15:9. What a
contrast with Paul and some dominating "authority" ego ministers
that have risen in this 20th century, within the very Church of
God.
This father/son - brother/sister/mother - relationship was
very important in the mind of Paul(hence God's mind, as he
inspired Paul) as he instructed ministers on how to function in
their office within the church, how to relate to the brethren of
the church. Note carefully what the Lord wrote through him in 1
Timothy 5:1-2.
"Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father,
younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as
sisters, with all purity."
This has been God's instruction all along for the elders, it
has been in the word for nearly 2,000 years, yet many ministers
in the Church of God have fragrantly rejected or conducted
themselves in complete antithesis to these words of the Lord, in
this 20th century. Many elders have brought dishonor upon the
name of the Church of God by the way they talked to, corrected,
instructed, guided, and just plainly conducted themselves towards
the children of the Highest, for whom Christ died. I pray that
those who acted less than what these verses instruct will deeply
repent and seek the forgiveness of the Lord, and turn about to
get in harmony with God on how to conduct their relationship with
the brethren of the church.
Now consider all this with one more light added - a HUGE
flood-light indeed!
Who was this man Paul and what did God do through him?
He was converted on the road to Damascus by Christ
PERSONALLY appearing and talking to him (Acts 9).
Who since Paul has had that experience?
Paul's calling and commission by God was revealed to another
man and recorded (Acts 9).
Who since Paul can claim that revelation?
He was personally TAUGHT by Christ (Gal.1).
Who since Paul(and maybe John - with the book of Revelation)
has been given that honor? Find such a person who claims it and
you have found a conceited liar.
Paul was given visions and revelations WAY BEYOND most
others (2 Cor.12; Acts 16).
Who in this 20th century can claim such phenomenon?
He was given the gift of TONGUES and HEALINGS (1 Cor.14;
Acts 19:11-12).
Who in this 20th century was given such gifts for the work
of the Lord?
Paul physically suffered unbelievable hardships, pain,
troubles, and persecutions for the gospel (Acts 9:16; read the
rest of Acts; ~ Cor.11: 16-28).
Who in this century can boast of such things in the flesh?
He was finally put to death as a Christian martyr
(2 Tim.4:6).
Who in the Church of God in this century can claim such a
death?
Finally, Paul was used by the Lord to write DIVINE
INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE - God breathed scripture - 14 books of the
NT that are directly INSPIRED of God (2 Pet.3:15-17).
Who since the apostle John and the book of Revelation can
claim that accomplishment? Find such a person and you have found
a pompous fool.
Now with all that under Paul's belt, do you not suppose he
had just a little tiny bit of '"authority" to instruct others in
how to "behave yourself in the house of God" (1 Tim.3:15)? You
bet your bottom dollar he did!
Yet Paul said his relationship with Timothy (and so Titus
also) was not built upon an authority rank system, but one of a
father with a son, and that Timothy served WITH him in the work
of the gospel.
Now if that was Paul's attitude, example and way of life, as
it was, a man so mightily used and inspired of God, then can ANY
other man to follow him in the ministry be any different?
Not if they are following Paul as he followed Christ (1
Cor.11:1).
Nobody in this century or before has come CLOSE TO BEING A
Paul, anyone thinking or claiming so has never clearly read the
NT, but has been blinded by their own vanity.
So what right do they have to speak about "authority" over
other ministers when one of the greatest inspired elders of God
never spoke about his "authority"' over other true ministers of
God. Yet those who knew and worked with him would have given him
deep respect and honor because of how God was using him. But he
never used an "authority line" with any minister. He did not
believe James, Peter, or John had authority over him (Gal.2), nor
did he teach that he had authority over them. God used them all,
HOW, WHEN, and WHERE as He decided and willed.
Paul instructing Titus to "ordain elders in every city" is
FAR MORE than purely "administrative." Being an elder in the
church is far more than deciding which photo copying machine to
buy, or what hall to rent for Sabbath services, or what PA system
to purchase.
Prayer and fasting are part of ordaining men to the
eldership (Acts 14: 23). No small undertaking, nothing to be
taken lightly at all. Certain standards and qualifications
are to be met by those who "desire the office of overseers"
(1 Tim.3:1-7).
Paul was TALKING ABOUT DOCTRINE in regards to this matter of
ordaining men in each city, not physical administration!
When even in purely church administrative matters (not even
doctrine) Paul and Barnabas had a huge serious DIFFERENCE that
could not be reconciled at the time, and they parted company to
do separate works for the Lord, there was no "authority" line by
either man pulled from the holster and fired off (Acts 15:36-41),
or brought before some "higher in authority" minister.
So even in administrative matters ministers must learn to
CO-OPERATE together as TEAM WORKERS - giving and taking, or they
must go their different ways to work the work of God as Paul and
Barnabas chose to do.
We have seen Paul's attitude of mind and way of life towards
Timothy and Titus(notice the words in Titus 1:4), two younger
ministers who worked WITH him in the gospel. Then note also his
disposition towards EPAPHRODITUS in Phil.2:24-30. Again only,
love, affection, and humility, telling others to hold such in
"reputation."
Turn to Romans 16:1-15 and see how Paul addressed many of
them. Once more appreciation, praise, thankfulness, honor, love,
and humility is shown. Some were FELLOW WORKERS/CO-WORKERS as the
Greek is for "helpers" in the KJV. Note Paul's humility and
respect and affection for the two WOMEN of verses 1-5. And this
is Paul whom some claim "put down" women or hated them or was a
racist towards them. What utter garbage! What utter falsehood and
perversion of the scriptures that God inspired him to write.
One final word on this section. When Paul was writing to
instruct Timothy and Titus, he was writing INFALLIBLE INSPIRED
SCRIPTURE - GOD BREATHED WORDS DIRECTLY FROM THE MIND OF THE LORD
- A "THUS SAYS THE LORD." I guess he did have the right to use
some "authority" with it, for it was really God speaking, and God
does have some authority you know.
No man's writing since the book of Revelation carries that
authority. Nothing I have written(and there is much) over the
last 17 years is God breathed. I hope there is lots of truth to
be found in it all, yet there may be error that needs correcting.
Nothing that HWA wrote can be said to be God breathed. There was
much truth in much of his writings, but there was also error and
incorrect understanding of verses of scripture at times, that
need to be corrected. This I can prove is the plain truth for
those who may believe otherwise.
Nobody since the days of the apostle John has been used to
write inspired infallible scripture, let's get that clearly set
in our minds. No minister today can speak to another minister as
Paul spoke to Timothy and Titus, for no minister today is writing
God breathed scripture as Paul was doing when he was instructing
those two younger elders.
ONE MAN AT A TIME IDEA
The next argument that needs to be answered is: "It should
also be very clear that the Living Christ has ALWAYS directed
major areas of His Work primarily through one man at a time" (GCN
Sept/Oct.95, p.6).
The writer gives the example of Moses, Joshua, Samuel etc.
Well okay - under the OC I can agree with that. Under the
NC?
The example of Peter and Paul over the circumcised and
uncircumcised (Gal.2:7-9) is given.
Oh, I can agree that God did primarily use as PILLARS the
apostle Peter and the apostle Paul for those large areas of His
work. BUT those two men LIVED at the SAME time, and were part of
the SAME church, attended the SAME ministerial conference in
Jerusalem(Acts 15), visiting each other at times (Gal.l),
attending the SAME local congregation at times(Gal.2), and
acknowledging they were writing scripture(2 Pet.3:15-16).
Who decided who would do what work in these large areas of
God's work? Was it the ministers themselves getting together to
decide? Was it a "board" of ministers? Or a committee of
congregational persons giving out orders?
No! It was God who decided (i.e. Acts 9; 10; 13).
The responsibilities and FUNCTION of elders had really
nothing to do with "huge differences and antagonism between the
Gentiles and the Jewish people of the day, and also because of
geographical considerations and the fact that there was no
instant communication as we have in our time now" (GCN -Sept/Oct
1995, p.6).
The reasoning of man to try to hold on to false concepts of
the idea of "one man at a time" under the NC age is wondrous to
behold.
God had no trouble with geographical distance and instant
communication on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Nor in
scattering the church to preach the word in Acts 8. He had no
trouble with geography in sending Philip to Samaria and later
Peter and John (Acts 8).
God had little problem in getting Philip to the Ethiopian
eunuch when necessary (Acts 8:26). He was also able to take him
away with little effort (verses 39,40).
The church at Corinth had little trouble in communicating
with all their different languages. God just gave them the gift
of tongues (1 Cor.14).
On and on I could go.
The gospel was spread quite nicely and quickly thank you,
until the world was turned up-side down, and that without the aid
of TV, radio, or the computer Internet.
As for the huge difference and antagonism between Jews and
Gentiles, I'm sure Paul could have managed very well with BOTH,
if it had been the will of God, after all Paul was a Jew and a
one time Pharisee. He also had good vibes with the Gentiles, and
FOR A TIME he DID work on BOTH fronts of the line.
It was God who eventually decided to use Paul mainly in the
Gentile camp.
The fact is ONE man like Paul could have worked in both
camps of Jews and Gentiles IF the Lord had willed so. It had
nothing to do with geography or instant communication, but SOLELY
with the WILL and DECISION of God as to WHO would do WHAT ,and
WHERE, and WHEN ,they would do it.
And so it is to this very day!
All this argument is to lead to one final belief.
"ONE" UNDER ONE INSPIRED LEADER
"Today, such a division is NOT necessary since we have
almost instant communication around the world through telephones,
computers, fax machines, etc. These modern means of communication
enabled the vast majority of God's people to be 'one' under the
inspired leadership of God's servant, Herbert W. Armstrong.
Christ guided and BLESSED His Work in that way for over 50
years!" (GCN - Sept/Oct. 1995, p.6).
Ah, reading between the lines, I see where this is leading,
to the false teaching that God is STILL leading the "vast
majority" of His people to be "one" under another organization
with another single man as leader, who will be BLESSED above all
others.
It is a clever psychological "come on" based upon a
quick-sand foundation in order to get people to belong to the
"one" and really true extension of the - work built by HWA
- the Global Church of God.
What men will do to get a following or to build their
"empire."
If God has used in the NC age "one man at a time" to direct
major areas of His work, and for 50 years or more that ONE man
was HWA, then tell me WHO was the one man directing the major
area of God's work BEFORE HWA?
Where was the "major" area of God's work being done, WHO was
the one man over it, what happened to him and how did HWA get to
take over his mantle?
Then if you can answer that, tell me the name of the one man
over God's work before the man who was before HWA?
Further still, how does all of that fit in with the present
state of things among the different branches and splits that have
come out of the WCG founded by HWA? Who is the "one man at a
time" NOW?
If is it governed by literal numbers then at present it must
go to the "one man" (whoever he is) of the UNITED Church of God,
as they seem to be on top in number of members.
Again, if they should fall behind in membership to say the
GLOBAL Church of God, will the "one man at a time" change to the
one man of Global?
What if the CGI(Church of God, International) should in the
next 5 or 10 years surpass in number of members all other
branches, will their one man (if they have one) become the "one
man at a time" director over God's major area of work?
And to yet add more fuel to the fire, what if the CGI only
held the record of membership for a year or two, and the
ministers of the present WCG all repented of their apostasy -
returned to full truth and became the largest branch in
membership etc. Would God transfer the "one man at a time" to the
WCG's one man?
I speak with tongue in cheek. Pretty silly isn't it? Not
just silly - it is DUMB!! What
illogical ideas the heart of man ponders.
AN "INSPIRED" LEADER?
I did not bring this up, I was not going to even mention it,
talk about it, or discuss it, in this study, but here it is again
in the quote previously given, "........God's people to be 'one'
under the INSPIRED leadership of God's servant, Herbert W.
Armstrong......"
I didn't bring this up, yet it has been brought up within
the subject of Church Government. So it would be shirking my duty
as a minister and servant of the Eternal God to let this go
unanswered. Those who put men on pedestals had better have large
enough shoulders to carry the burden.
Now I earlier used the word "inspire" for Paul and John the
apostles. I called them inspired - they truly were!
For any man to use that word in regards to another human being
since the death of John is danger, d a n g e r , DANGEROUS!
There is sometimes a very loose way in which we use the word
"inspire" today in the twentieth century, but I have personally
experienced some in the church using this word for HWA not in the
loose sense at all. Their mind and heart and emotions making
it very plain to me as to how they were using the word.
The Jehovah Witnesses have their "inspired" man - William
Russell.
The Mormons have their "inspired" leader - Joseph Smith
together with the book of Mormon.
The Christian Science people have their "inspired" teacher -
Mary Baker Eddy.
The Seventh Day Adventist church have their "inspired"
prophet - Ellen G. White.
I have talked with, had Bible studies with, over the years,
members from the above churches. I know their basic beliefs, I
have read and studied their books and literature. I have
personally been witness to the results of the mental attitude in
the above groups and MANY of their members, in relation to their
"inspired" one.
They eventually take their eyes off Jesus Christ, they look
away from the word of the Lord to the words of their human
"inspired" one. Eventually it becomes a mill-stone around their
necks, it blinds them to the truth that would set them free as
Jesus said. Their faith and trust is in a physical person. They
loose the ability to see error and mistakes in the "inspired"
one. They loose the ability to be corrected and shown error in
their lives and doctrine of belief from the word of God. They
enter complacency, thinking they have it all, and have no need
for anything.
They enter the never never land of the self-righteous
Laodicean attitude of Revelation 3. They eventually stop thinking
and growing in grace and knowledge of Christ and the word of God
because their "inspired" one did it all for them and there is
nothing new to learn. They develop a mind set that precludes them
from seeing any new light, for that would mean to them their
"inspired" one did not have all the light.
They especially get up-set, irritable, and often plain out
and out ANGRY when shown that their "inspired" one wrote things
or taught things that the word of God clearly shows is error or
the antithesis to the truth.
Again I will say, I have personally had members of the
aforementioned groups, as well as members of the WCG(those who
believed HWA was inspired to the point of infallibility) who got
red hot with anger and stormed out of my presence, because I
showed them from the word of God, errors in the writings of their
inspired one.
Some have put so much faith in the inspiration of their
churches "inspired" prophet, that upon being shown they were not
so inspired as they believed, they WALKED AWAY from God. Yet it
was not the fault of God, but false teachers and they themselves
for not heeding the word of God about such matters. Only God's
word is truth, only He does not lie, or misunderstand, or
misinterpret, or fall prey to human carnality and sin.
I hope you dear reader have not put a man on a pedestal
where he should never have been put, for if you have the day will
come when you will discover your error and then as your
"inspired" one falls to eye level, you had better be strong
enough to take the fall and not fall yourself where "all the
kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty
TOGETHER AGAIN."
I could take the time, but here is not the place, to fully
e x p o u n d to you the errors, misunderstanding,
misinterpretation, false ideas, false teachings, wrong decisions,
carnal works of the flesh, and yes, at times, some wrong
doctrines, of Herbert Armstrong.
HWA was far from being "inspired" at times, then at other
times he was, if we use the word loosely, as we often do,
inspired in his writings and study of God's word.
Using the word "loosely" I can say I hope many of God's
people are inspired as they write articles on Christian faith,
but nobody from the second century A.D. on, has been inspired in
the way Paul was inspired. That is why he wrote for you and me
today "PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD."
HWA was not inspired like the apostle Paul was inspired. And
to give the man credit, HWA never said he ever was.
Nobody today is inspired in the way Paul was inspired. Maybe
the two witnesses of God in the book of Revelation, when they
preach, we will see again the inspiration that filled the apostle
Paul.
Make sure you do not err by thinking I am against HWA. I
love him as I love all God's people. I acknowledge he was a
minister of God that was used to do a mighty work for God, and
preached much truth to many people.
Christ did use HWA and the WCG for many years. To state it
was for over 50 years is VERY DEBATABLE indeed, a debate I will
not enter into here.
1 TIMOTHY 5:17
There is need to comment on what Paul said to Timothy in the
above verse about an elder being "counted worthy of DOUBLE
honor."
It is argued that Paul is speaking about an elder receiving
double WAGES. At fist glance it would appear from verse 18 that
there is some truth to that idea.
Then on closer look, even if we allow the above argument to
stand, we note that Paul says "be counted worthy of double honor"
and NOT that he must as a command from him absolutely, at all
times, be paid double wages or re-numeration.
The elder may, if he does his work well within the church,
be worthy to be paid double what he is paid, but that does not
mean there are the funds to literally do so. And even if there
was, there is still another problem to solve. Paul gives no
instruction on a "yard stick" line as to HOW MUCH IS THE FIRST
WAGE in the first place that some say should be doubled. What may
have been a good livable wage in Paul's time, could be starvation
and a homeless situation today in the Western World.
Who would determine if the first bottom of the line wage
before being doubled, for the minister or elder, would be the
upper average wage of the middle class, the average lower wage of
the lower class, or the poverty wage line, of the country the
elder lives in?
There are FAR TOO MANY FACTORS to consider if we believe
Paul is here giving an absolute command and law that churches are
to pay their elders (who are full time in the ministry) DOUBLE
wages.
I believe a better understanding of these verses is that
Paul is emphasizing having a very HIGH esteem of mind towards
those elders who really work hard and govern the church well,
while not ruling out a proper physical renumeration.
The Greek word used for "honor" in verse 17 would bear out
the interpretation I give above.
The number in Strong's Concordance is 5092 - teemay - is the
English way to pronounce the word. Strong's will show it could
refer to literal valuables, i.e. money, it also refers to the
mental attitude and value of words like - esteem, dignity,
precious, honor.
We must look further to get more light on this word and how
we should understand it in the context of 1 Tim.5:17. The
Englishman's Greek Concordance will serve us well. Page 732 lists
every scripture where this word is used in the NT. It is used in
42 verses. In 8 of those uses the word is translated as "price"
in the KJV. In 6 cases it is referring undoubtedly to the price
of money. The other two cases it is referring to the price of the
death of Christ to buy us back from sin. In one case it is
translated by the word "sum" and again refers to money - Abraham
bought a piece of land for a sum of money.
In all other instances it is rendered as "honor" except once when
it is rendered as "precious."
Note verses like John 4:44 "has no honor in his own
country." Rom.2:7 "seek for glory and honor." Rom.12:10 "in honor
preferring one another.'' Rom.13:7 "honor to whom honor." 1
Tim.6:1 "their own masters worthy of all honor." 1 Pet.3:7
"giving honor unto the wife."
It is used many times as giving honor to God the Father, as
well as to Christ.
By a margin of at least 3 to 1 the word is used in the NT to
denote a MENTAL ATTITUDE of esteem, dignity, praise,
appreciation, honor.
I believe Paul was FIRST telling Timothy and hence all of
us, that the elders who really work hard and well in governing
the church should be mentally counted very high in esteem,
appreciation and honor. We may put it as "he is greatly honored"
in a figure of speech, Paul said "double honor'' as his figure of
speech. He was first emphasizing this attitude of mind but was
also not ignoring a physical pay for their labor in the word and
doctrine.
The physical pay would have to be governed by the number of
full time elders in the church, the amount of money coming into
the church funds, and the cost of living as found in the area or
country the elders live in.
BARNE'S NOTES ON THE NT has some fine comments:
17." Let the elders that rule well......The word used -
elder or presbyter - properly refers to age, and then it is used
to denote the officers of the church......The word rendered
rule...... is from a verb meaning to be over, to preside over, to
have the care of......That rule well. Presiding well, or well
managing the spiritual interests of the church......Be counted
worthy of double honor. Of double respect; that is, of a high
degree of respect. Comp.1 Thes.5:12,13. From the quotation which
is made in ver.18, in relation to this subject, it would seem
probable that the apostle had some reference also to their
support, or to what was necessary for their maintenance......
corresponding to the amount of time which their office required
them to devote to the service of the church......Especially they
who labor in word and doctrine. In preaching and instructing
the people. From this it is clear that, while there were 'elders'
who labored 'in the word and doctrine' that is, in preaching,
there were also those who did not labor in 'the word and
doctrine' but were nevertheless appointed to rule in the
church......part of them were engaged in preaching.......a part
may have been employed in managing other concerns of the church,
and yet all were regarded as the......'elders presiding over the
church.'
.........Those who among them 'labored in the word and doctrine,'
and who gave up all their time to the business of their office,
would be worthy of special respect, and a higher compensation."
End quote.
IS THIS THE END
It is, but who knows for how long. With all that is taking place
in the various branches of the Church of God coming out of the
WCG, I may yet have to answer more arguments from more study
papers yet to be written on this subject.
The appendix was first written in November 1995, with revisions
in 1996.
....................
Indeed, it was not long before it was necessary for me to have to
write more on this subject. Two widely distributed papers came
out which contained much truth BUT also some SERIOUS errors.
Those errors I answer in the second half on this book on Church
Government.
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment